Sunteți pe pagina 1din 434


FOREWORD..................................................................................................... iii
PROLOGUE....................................................................................................... v
I: WE ARE AT WAR.................................................................................. 1
SEARCH FOR DUTY – HONOR – COUNTRY...................................... 1
THE MCNAMARA MEA CULPA .......................................................... 11
II: SHOWDOWN AT HIGH NOON ........................................................ 23
MONEY - MEDIA MONOPOLY........................................................... 23
HAS OUR MILITARY BETRAYED US?.............................................. 33
WHO CONTROLS THE VOTES? ......................................................... 40
III: BOLSHEVIKS RULE RUSSIA ........................................................... 57
RULE BY THE “MINORITY” ............................................................... 57
SETTING THE STAGE FOR CONQUEST ........................................... 68
OLIGARCHS TAKE OVER ................................................................... 74
IV: FDR’S BLOODY ROAD TO BOLSHEVISM.................................... 87
BEGINNING THE IMPERIUM ............................................................. 87
V: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT YALTA? ................................... 111
STEAMROLLING FDR ....................................................................... 111
THE SECRET POWER STRUCTURE ................................................ 120
VI: NAZI – ZIONIST SECRET ALLIANCE .......................................... 129
ADOLF HITLER: CO-FOUNDER OF ISRAEL................................... 129
THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT ........................................................ 140
A NEW TRANSFER AGREEMENT ................................................... 145
VII: NUREMBERG TRIALS AS FRAUD ................................................ 157
MAJOR ADVANCE TO BARBARISM............................................... 157
THE BIG SHOW IN THE MAIN TENT .............................................. 169
VIII: ROCKY ROAD TO GLOBAL DESPOTISM .................................. 181
BETRAYING THE NATION ............................................................... 181
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ....................................................... 194
IX: FASCISM’S FRIENDLY FACE........................................................ 201
COVENANT OF RACE SUPERIORITY............................................. 201
“DEMOCRACY IN ACTION” ............................................................. 213
X: ISRAELI ACTS OF TERROR AN “OPEN SECRET” ................... 223
ISRAELI NUCLEAR/FOREIGN POLICY........................................... 223
DEFINING ISRAEL’S SACRED TERRORISM.................................. 236

XI: MANIPULATING PUBLIC OPINION ............................................ 243

REGIMENTING HUMAN THOUGHT ............................................... 243
CONTROLLING THE UNIVERSE ..................................................... 254
PSYCHOPOLITICS OF FORCE AND BRUTALITY ......................... 261
XII: DEFINING THE NEW COVENANT................................................ 267
COVENANT BUILDING BLOCKS .................................................... 267
NEW COVENANT = NEW WORLD ORDER .................................... 279
CLINTON COVENANT – ANTI-CHRISTIAN ................................... 293
ZIONISTS CONTROL CLINTONS/GORE ......................................... 299
XIII: WILL BOLSHEVISM TRIUMPH? .................................................. 317
BOLSHEVIZING LOS DIABLOS......................................................... 317
A “FIFTH COLUMN” WITHIN THE GATES.................................... 326
XIV: THE COMING COUP........................................................................ 337
WHEN YOU STRIKE AT A KING….................................................. 337
GRAND STRATEGY OF A COUP ...................................................... 353
COUPS D’ÉTATS IN RUSSIA AND US .............................................. 358
SEVEN DAYS IN MAY........................................................................... 362
EPILOGUE..................................................................................................... 371
AFTERWORD ............................................................................................... 398
NOTES ............................................................................................................ 402

T HE words and pages and chapters of this book are not written
to shock the reader. But they do. Here, for the first time in
many decades, is a view of the forces that act on our lives as
Americans. Here is a case, complete with impeccable historical
references, of plans begun many years ago to control the course of
human life on earth. And the plans are a continuum – not easy to
envision in the every day life of a people born to, and believing in,
personal freedom. This book is a measure by which thinking
people can see the gradual reduction of the freedoms that were the
promise of our national founders.
The author gives us a perspective based on a firsthand
knowledge of both time and events, as well as close association
with many of the leading characters who willfully assisted the
country, our society and its institutions in a downhill spiral leading
to the present and ongoing crisis of epic proportions. He was
witness to the almost incomprehensible treachery, ineptness and
blatant corruption of our chosen leaders, at the highest levels of
government, as they dragged this country and its peoples from one
unmitigated disaster to another, not only in domestic affairs, but
especially in our rudderless foreign policy, which led us blindly
into a series of pointless and disastrous no-win wars. What
emerged was an almost fatally weakened military force, which has
been purposely led astray from its major – and only – mission of
defending the constitution, and handed such morale-destroying
tasks as humanitarianism, peace-keeping and nationbuilding. As
these tragic events unfolded, the deliberate destruction of our
culture, morals and mores as a Christian nation was aided and
abetted by a subservient and complicit press.
While many people will undoubtedly read this book, a far
greater number will be unable to read it, for illiteracy is one of the
aims of those who would remove the power of individual opinion.
For those of us who have good memories, the progress of group

control is obvious. The growing power of the shadowy figures

who increase their own domain and little by little eliminate the
options of individuals is visible to any who will step back and look,
compare, measure. The most frightening aspect of the growing
power and control over our daily lives is the sincerity of those who
wish to exercise it. They believe with a religious fervor that they
are better qualified to manage our lives than we are.
It has often been repeated that freedom is the unobstructed
exercise of options. Conversely, tyranny is the absence of human
options. As humans, we came into life on this earth complete with
the need to make decisions, to find and to choose between one
course and another; one object or another; one person or another;
one belief or another. These options are being gradually removed
and replaced. That is a measurable fact. The only question
remaining is whether it is accidental encroachment or a planned
one. Col Donn de Grand Pré thoroughly documents his case that it
is planned, that the planners’ direction is historic and unchanging.
We must finally recognize that there are those among us
who have the human characteristic, the need, to control other
humans. We must finally recognize that they span generations and
lifetimes. We must finally see them for what they truly are. They
have many names; Scribes and Pharisees, the Parsees and high
castes of India, the myriad of upper bureaucrats in our own and
other government, the one-worlders. These are those who cannot
abide individual decisions and actions contrary to group thought,
for the excitement of individual action is frightening to them.
Their needs are the great warm wombs of group thought, group
action. Their violent hostility to any thought or purpose other than
mass acceptance is evident to any logical observer.
The contest between those who believe in individual rights
and actions and those who seek control of other human lives is not
a new one. It is an ancient struggle with many dimensions. It is a
war between forthrightness and the candor of individual decisions
and those who would gain power through stealth and hypocrisy.
The forces that act against individual liberty are subtle, gradual,

persuasive – and very rewarding to those whose own lack of

individual courage and achievement leads them in the group
direction. And the pendulum is high on the side of the power-
Those who purvey group thought, who pretend to believe in
the herd mentality, herd wisdom, can win. But the only path for
them to achieve victory is one that dehumanizes and degrades
others. Therefore their destabilization of the courts, the insistence
on mediocrity in public schools, the constant attacks on religious
faith should not come as a surprise. That the majority of the media
should support these actions is disgraceful in every sense of the
Thoughtful and honorable people who read this book will
discover a wake-up call in Col Grand Pré’s premises and
conclusions. Make no mistake about it – this book is the opening
shot in a war that individuals must win in order to have our nation
and our freedom restored.
John F. Williams III
Madison, Virginia
April 2000

John F. Williams, a decorated Army officer and Combat

Engineer of World War II and of the Korean police action, is a
graduate of North Carolina State and Duke Universities, with a BS
and MS in Natural Science (Forestry). He is presently a missionary
to Guatemala.


Charles A. Lindbergh, a colonel in the US Army Air Corps

Reserve, volunteered for active duty 10 Dec 1941, but FDR, who
feared and hated him, turned the famous aviator down. In 1944, he
traveled to New Guinea, where as a civilian, “Mr. X,” he flew P-38
Lightning fighters on 50 combat missions, shooting down three
Japanese Zeros and carrying out secret missions for Gen Douglas

In the above Army Signal Corps photo, “Lucky Lindy” is

shown being debriefed by Maj Thomas McGuire on the New
Guinea airstrip after a combat flight over the Pacific.
The barbarians are not at the gates, they are inside the gates –
and have academic tenure, judicial appointments, government grants,
and control of the movies, television, and other media. The question
of the hour – and of the next century – is whether all this can be
turned around.
Dr. Thomas Sowell, 1994

am in favor of Bolshevism.”
“I So spoke David Ben-Gurion (born David Gruen in Lodz,
Poland in 1886), the first prime minister of the new state of Israel.
In a revealing article, “Whose Country Is It?” in the January 1998
American Spectator, Tom Bethell puts those stirring words in their
proper context. Bethell had just returned from a week in
Jerusalem, which may or may not become the first capital city of
the World. Bethell writes that when the British controlled
Palestine after World War I, Chaim Weizmann and the Zionist
collaborated with quotas that prevented most religious or Oriental
Jews from immigrating.1
“Fifty years ago exactly,” Bethell informs us, “the Soviet
Union cast its crucial United Nations vote in favor of the new
state.” He also quotes Yosef Lapid, an editorial writer for Ma’ariv,
a left-wing newspaper, whose column bore the header: “It Just Isn’t
My Country Anymore.”
This begs the question, just whose country is it – this land
once called Palestine? There is a simple answer, but we can feel
for the perplexity of this man, Yosef Lapid, as he sees within his
country, the steady encroachment of Orthodox and religious Jews,
“most of the newer faces from Russia,” Bethell says, “almost a
million strong” since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They
brought with them “a new faith, which is to say the old faith; the
God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.”2

Although he doesn’t say it, Bethell intertwines several

exceptionally close alliances in his article, the United Nations,
Bolshevism, the Soviet Union, Zionism, Palestine, the new state
(Israel), David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizmann.…
They are all of a set piece. We will discover in this work
just how they interconnect, and how a relatively small band of evil
gangster-statesmen contrive unceasingly to erect a world empire
under the blue and white banners of the secular humanist
governments of the United Nations and the mini-state of Israel.
The cunning tactics and terror techniques of Lenin and
Stalin and their Zionist (say Bolshevist) Comrades, headed by such
historically significant thugs as “Iron Felix” Dzerzinsky and Leon
Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), are today being implemented with a
vengeance right here in our own country – the United States of
America – once the citadel of liberty and freedom; now, fast
becoming the premier fascist police state.
We too may ask the question: just whose country is it?
These latter-day Bolshevists, dedicated conspirators with a
fanatical will to power, are seizing the critical levers of
government and straining for the ultimate brass ring – a one-world
United Nations of absolute despotism.
The Korean War was the first large-scale war in American
history that began and ended without a declaration of war by the Congress
of the United States. It was the first war to be fought under the aegis of
the United Nations.
We rushed into Korea with no advance planning, and we
stumbled into the ground war in Vietnam with uncertain footing. In
neither case did we have any fully thought-out ideas concerning our
objectives or the means we would be willing to expend to attain them…
There was some excuse for our precipitate action in Korea, but little or
none for our somewhat aimless drift into deep involvement in Vietnam.
We must not let such situations develop again.3
J. Lawton Collins stressed this point in his book, War in
Peacetime, published in 1969. Known as “Lightning Joe” for his

heroic exploits as commander of the VII Corps from D-Day until

Germany surrendered, General Collins was Chief of Staff of the
US Army from 1950-53. During that time, those brave men doing
the actual fighting for the US Army in Korea looked upon
Lightning Joe as “The Boss.” This author was a young combat
infantry troop commander in Korea, who had served proudly as a
soldier in World War II, a latterday Sir Lancelot on a quest. It was
one of his heroes of World War II, General of the Army Omar
Bradley, who stated in 1951, “Korea is the wrong war in the wrong
place at the wrong time.”
After the Korean debacle, the author began to develop
serious doubts about the people who were running our country. He
thought then… did we do this… officers such as Generals
Ridgway, Collins, Taylor, Williams and Clarke, as well as those of
us of lesser rank? But that thought has been tempered by time; we
were the soldiers who carried out the orders; we were in effect the
architects and executioners of a failed policy.
Today, the doubts persist.
Here, the author makes his key point, for without it, this
book in its entirety is meaningless and a mere exercise in polemics.
We are in fact at war. We have an enemy, which can and must be
defined from a political standpoint, for war and politics have a
symbiotic relationship. While such factors as economic domina-
tion, religious differences and ideological disjunction may have a
bearing in the political arena, they can never of themselves
generate the intensity of mutual antipathy between opposing forces
to cause a war to break out.
To wage war, one must have a well-defined enemy. That
enemy must constitute a threat to our survival as a nation-state with
a clearly understood way of life. This condition leads to the
defense of a specific territory.
We can also wage offensive war against an enemy. The
purpose must be political gain or an increase in political power.
The net result may be an increase in land, booty, slaves and women
(as defined in the Old Testament), but concomitantly, there must

also be an increase in political power. Otherwise, you may emerge

from a war victorious, but suffer a net loss in political power;
witness France and Britain after both world wars.
And it is to these two world conflagrations we must now
look back, in order to grasp the realities of why they were fought
and who actually benefited from the ensuing peace.
We must be able to discern the nature of the propaganda
that we are constantly being fed in order to convince the unthinking
that a particular war is necessary. Always ask the question:
necessary for whom, or for what?
We will be incessantly hammered with atrocities and the
barbarous behavior of a supposed enemy; and/or appealed to for
humanitarian reasons to gain our support in sending our armed
forces to some distant shore to protect some defenseless peoples
(usually suffering women and children – Bill Clinton and his
handlers perfected this emotional appeal), or to wage war against a
personal enemy, a madman, or a dictator (George Bush developed
this to an art form, slavering in public over his personal animosity
toward Saddam Hussein). These emotional reasons of themselves
are meaningless, and are usually based on lies and damned lies,
which are propagated on a daily basis by a controlled and
compliant media. In every instance, ask Cui bono?
Let’s not drift from Gen Collins’ major point that we are at
It is the thesis of this work that those overt wars in which
we engaged for whatever reason since the end of World War II
have not only been waged unconstitutionally in the truest sense, but
that we, the people, as a sovereign nation-state (meaning the
United States of America) have suffered a net loss in political
And each one was waged in order to divert our time and
energies and thoughts away from the true Enemy within and toward
a contrived enemy outside our borders.… Cui bono?

That same “nation” with which we have been actively at

war, albeit covertly, since 1933. It was best defined by Theodor
Herzl, the “father of International Zionism,” in 1902:
I will give you my definition of a nation, and you can add the
adjective ‘Jewish’. A nation is, in my mind, an historical group of men of
a recognizable cohesion held together by a common enemy. That is in my
view a nation. Then if you add to that the word ‘Jewish’ you have what I
understand to be the Jewish nation4
The planning for this ideological conflict goes back much
further. It makes use of the ancient formula, Knowledge equals
Wealth equals Power to further its intent of absolute gain which
equates to absolute despotism over all of us…men, women,
children, suckling babes, as well as a net gain in land, booty,
slaves, sheep, goats and cattle.
A quick overview will reveal that this ideological conflict is
purposely embodied in the “constitution” of the United Nations.
The United Nations Charter was purposely designed as an
instrument of force. Patterned after the Soviet constitution, it even
allowed for a Soviet commander-in-chief of the UN forces. Those
who fought in Korea served under that commander. They thought
Gen Collins, the chief of staff of the US Army, was “the Boss.” He
was not. A Soviet Bolshevik was.
The UN Undersecretary for Political and Security Affairs
from 1949 through 1953, Konstantin E. Zinchenko of the USSR
occupied that position. He was in fact “the Boss” and orchestrated
the defeat of the UN forces in Korea. None of the men fighting in
Korea realized that. Not even Gen Collins or Gen MacArthur was
aware until after the “peace” negotiations that our politicians –
including Presidents Truman and Eisenhower – had sold us out to a
twin-headed monster, the Zionist-Bolshevist and the Fabian
Socialist, whose heads occasionally snarl and spit at each other, but
in fact are joined to the same body.

Bear in mind that it is not “Jewish,” although many of its

individual components are in fact Zionist-Bolshevist Jews. Neither
is it “Christian,” although an equivalent number purport to be
Christians. That two-headed monster is comprised of “Jews who
are not Jews” and of “Christians who are not Christian,” for this
Bicephalous Monster is in fact satanic. We will go through the
courting, the conception, the gestation and the Caesarean delivery
of this illegitimate child of Lucifer… the god of light.… O, yes!
The late Representative Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota
knew who was in charge. Burdick operated a big cattle ranch in
western Dakota. He delivered a scathing speech on 17 Jan 1957 on
the floor of the House in which he said:
The Russians are and will continue to be on the Inside of any
Military Action taken by the Security Council of the United Nations. 5
This is still not general knowledge, for the mainstream
press has suppressed it over the years; yet, today, the UN Security
Council is the prime instrument for global conquest and
establishment of the New World Order. And this, of course, is
exactly the way the UN founders intended it to be.
Let’s look back briefly to a statement by the first Secretary
General for the UN, Trygve Lie, who said in his book, Cause for
Vyshinski was the first to inform me of an understanding which
the Big Five had reached in London on the appointment of a Soviet
national as Assistant Secretary-General for Political and Security Affairs.6
Who sold us out to the Soviets? We can cite the litany of
our country’s traitors, starting with FDR and those who surrounded
him, such as Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins, Henry Morganthau, Jr.,
Bernard Baruch, Samuel Rosenmann, Harry Dexter White (Weiss),
et al, but it was Edward Stettinius who had agreed in London that
the USSR would get that post.
The “Ultimate Dictator” gets his marching orders in
Chapter VII of the Charter that says in part under Article 47:

The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the

Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at
the disposal of the Security Council.
This is why we went into Korea without Congressional
authority. That august body had, in fact, abdicated their
constitutional responsibility (Section Eight, Article I: “…Congress
shall have power to declare war”).
What does this really mean? It means simply that the UN
Security Council – not the Congress of the United States – has now
the supreme authority to declare war.
The US Congress ratified that charter, which had been
authored by known communists and traitors in FDR’s cabinet,
including Alger Hiss, Leo Pasvolsky and Phillip Jessup. They are
gone. Others have taken their place, such as Henry Kissinger,
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger,
Robert Rubin, and many others who seem to have that same
irreverence for the US Constitution and love for the United Nations
FLASHBACK - February 1991: George Bush’s greatest
triumph as President was also his greatest failure; that was the
fiasco of “Desert Storm.” Some of us who at one time were
“insiders” in the true sense of the word disengaged ourselves from
a corrupt and failing federal government, not because we were
Democrat or Republican or independent, but because we saw the
nature of the Enemy within. Some of us retired into serenity,
senility and pastoral pursuits, while others tried to sound the alarm,
most to little avail, for they were reluctant – for whatever reason –
to explicitly define the Enemy.
Why did the United States deliberately set out in 1990 to
destroy the viability of the once-sovereign nation of Iraq? We can
find an answer in the superb work by George Knupffer, The
Struggle for World Power. Knupffer had the foresight to predict a
war with Iraq such as Desert Storm. He wrote:

Before leaving the subject of the enemy’s foreign policy, we

should note that the significance of Israel and of Jerusalem, the intended
capital of the world, is very great. Now it may seem that the Soviets are
opposed to Zionist conquests and are backing the Arabs. In fact the
Communists play their usual role of agent-provocateur, and they give the
Arabs enough arms and encouragement to fight without real hope of
victory, thereby justifying further Israeli conquests until they have what
they have always wanted – the whole area from the Nile to the
Euphrates... But should Israel ever be in real danger then both the USA
and the USSR would come to its rescue, being always in collusion. The
sooner the Arabs understand the facts the better for them. Their only
chance of survival is to work on the lines we propose, while abandoning
policies which, for over fifty years, have brought nothing but defeats.7
It is perhaps time that we too understand the facts. It is also
time to identify and to know our enemy. It is the purpose of this
series of papers to identify that enemy. We know that he is already
inside the gates.
Another soldier of an earlier era, Colonel Robert R.
McCormick, distinguished himself in the Battle of Cantigny in
France in 1918. He came home to Chicago and took over the
family newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, and built it up to be the
nation’s largest-circulation broadsheet. The Barnes Review (Mar-
Apr 1998) honored the Colonel in its section “Profiles in History”8
In an address at Notre Dame University in 1941,
McCormick recalled his World War I experiences and said that
American intervention in Europe would bring about a most
unfortunate repetition: “The use of our power to strengthen one
side of a quarrel – at our expense.” For 45 of his 75 years, Col
McCormick imparted his message of patriotism and nationalism in
the Chicago Tribune. He was a brave and fearless messenger.
He was both an American nationalist and an avid
midwestern sectionalist. He saw in the power centers of the East a
paradoxical alliance of “international capital and international
communism.” Like Colonel McCormick, others view the United
Nations, and its international Declaration of Human Rights, as
threats to America’s sovereignty. As reported in The Barnes
Review cited above, McCormick considered the Nuremberg “war

criminal” trials to be a lynching rite staged to justify the newly

conceived ex post facto crime of “waging aggressive war.” We
will address these fraudulent, and indeed criminal, trials in Chapter
There is an ancient fable that asks the question: Who will
bell the cat? It is the intent of this book to bell the cat. By belling
the cat, the author will naturally step on a few toes and will
probably be accused of being both “anti-Christian” and “anti-
Jewish.” There will be those who, rather than addressing the
issues, will hurl the poison spear of “anti-Semitism” at the
A standard Zionist-Bolshevist modus operandi is to scream
anti-Semite at anyone who exposes any of their nefarious plans,
and to seek the “sympathy factor” by staging “incidents,” such as
desecration of their own cemeteries or torching their own
synagogues and blaming it on “neo-Nazis.” They are masters at
this kind of deception, dissimulation and propaganda. Because
they control 90% of the mainstream media here in the US, as well
as in many other countries, they have the added advantage of mass
outlets for their deception and outright lies. Two remarkable
writers addressed the political potency of the pejorative, “anti-
That great American scholar and author of Jewish heritage,
Alfred M. Lilienthal, in The Other Side of the Coin, said:
Neither the religious nor the lay leaders of the many Jewish
organizations wish to lose this potent weapon. Remove prejudice and
lose adherents to the faith... This is the conspiracy of the rabbinate,
Jewish nationals and other leaders of organized Jewry to keep the
problems of prejudice alive.9
Ivor Benson, writing in The Zionist Factor, said that we
would do well “never to forget that it is a chauvinist Zionist
ambition that is edging mankind toward the brink of another global
catastrophe, and that its most potent weapon is the mind-paralyzing
lie of antisemitism.”10

Israel Shahak, whom Gore Vidal calls “the latest – if not

the last – of the great prophets,” resides in Israel. In his seminal
work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three
Thousand Years, he concentrated on this great and driving need for
prejudice and outright hostility toward non-Jews on the part of
chauvinist Zionists. In a chapter appropriately titled “Political
Consequences,” he wrote:
US support for Israel, when considered not in abstract but in
concrete detail, cannot be adequately explained only as a result of
American imperial interests. The strong influence wielded by the
organized Jewish community in the USA in support of all Israeli policies
must also be taken into account in order to explain the Middle East
policies of American administrations.… It should be recalled that
Judaism, especially in its classical form, is totalitarian in nature. The
behavior of supporters of other totalitarian ideologies of our times was not
different from that of organized American Jews.…
Any support of human rights in general by a Jew which does not
include support of human rights of non-Jews whose rights are being
violated by the ‘Jewish State’ is as deceitful as the support of human
rights by a Stalinist.11
Shahak concludes his monumental work by stating:
The real test facing both Israeli and Diaspora Jews is the test of
their self-criticism which must include the critique of the Jewish past.…
The extent of the persecution and discrimination against non-Jews
inflicted by the ‘Jewishized’ Diaspora Jews is also enormously greater
than the suffering inflicted on Jews by regimes hostile to them.
The quadripartite countries involved in the Mideast
takeover (the US, the USSR, Britain and Israel) continue to use
destabilization as a principal weapon. It has destroyed the once-
beautiful city of Beirut, known as the “Paris of the Mideast”; the
most advanced country, Iraq; and wreaked havoc on the country
with the highest per capita income, Kuwait.
The culprit has been and continues to be international
Zionism wedded to Fabian Socialism – both with direct ties to
Soviet Bolshevism.
Zionism was established as a world political force in 1897
in Basel, Switzerland. Its aims since then have been centered on

setting up a one-world government with Zionism in control of

worldwide finance and therefore “Lord of the World.” Knupffer
points out in The Struggle for World Power that the driving force is
“Messianic Finance Capitalism that actually brought about Soviet
A quote from Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire is pertinent: “The enslavement of man usually
begins in the economic sphere.”
Dr. Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, stated in a
proposal to the Rothschild family council in 1881:
“We are a people – one people. When we sink, we become a
revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary
party; when we rise there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”12
Bolshevist Zionism is but one of two heads. The other –
Anglo-Saxon – is Fabian Socialism. The victims – those who are
mauled and devoured by this monster – are both gentile and Jew,
that make up the patriotic and freedom-loving peoples of America,
England, Israel, Russia, and, in fact, of the world over. This is not
a religious issue, but one of power politics which is built on the
foundation of money monopoly, coupled to monopoly of the media
for monetary and mind control. Ask yourself a simple question:
who – or what group – controls both money and the media, as well
as other levers of power, in the United States?
That’s what it’s all about. It doesn’t matter who is backing
whom in the Mideast or other regions around the world; the end
result, after destabilizing the region, is control of the resources and
the real estate, especially the choke points. We saw this so clearly
when we dispatched our troops into Somalia in 1993. Check your
world atlas, and notice that Somalia and its tiny neighboring
country of Djibouti are separated from the Arabian Peninsula by
the strategically vital strait of Bab el Mandeb. Another critical
choke point which the US and Britain control with carrier task
forces is the Strait of Hormuz, separating the Persian Gulf from the
Gulf of Oman. In fact, we have had a naval task force stationed at
Bahrain, off the north coast of Saudi Arabia, since 1973. The

choke point most threatening to the US is that of the Panama

Canal. Under a Panamanian 50-year lease beginning on January 1,
2000, China took possession of the ports of Cristobal on the
Atlantic and Balboa on the Pacific. “Doomsday” proclaims
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Joint Chief of Staff, now
retired. “The Chinese are in a position today to…use Panama as a
launching point for missiles to attack the US.”
In a Time magazine report, “As Washington Burns…” (9
Feb 1998), Bruce Nelan writes about Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright’s trip to Europe and the Mideast to seek “allied” support
in the bombing – one more time – of the Islamic country of Iraq,
and to persuade Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to allow US planes
based there to take part in any anti-Saddam offensive. “So far,”
Nelan says, “only Britain, which has sent an aircraft carrier task
force to the Gulf, stands firmly with the US on the use of force.”13
Nelan explains that the US has plenty of land and carrier
based planes and missiles in the Gulf to give Saddam’s military a
pounding. He continues, “But such attacks would not wipe out all
of Iraq’s hidden poisons and gases, because the US does not know
where they are.”
Therein is the heart of the dilemma; we have had UN
inspection teams combing the backwaters of Iraq for over seven
years looking for what Madeleine and others call “weapons of
mass destruction.” These teams have found nothing even remotely
resembling “weapons of mass destruction”; no rockets, no poisons,
no gases, no nothing… zip… zilch… still we look – and demand
the right to continue to look. Saddam, in effect, has said, “enough
is enough” and balked at further checking. Even the so-called
leaders of the Grand Old Party in Congress shook the mailed fist,
wanting to go in and kill somebody, if not Saddam himself, then
his Republican Guard; if not the Iraqi military, then the civilians,
including women, children and suckling babes. As Sen John

McCain pontificated: “If we can take him [Saddam], out clearly we

want to take him out. That’s far different from assassination.”14
Yes, far different. In fact, it would be mass murder.
President George Bush performed similar surgery on Iraqi women,
children and suckling babes in 1991 during Desert Storm. Our
public loved it, by jingo!
In his article Nelan stated that Clinton has a double
He relentlessly pursues Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction
while saying nothing about the atom bombs everyone assumes Israel has
stashed in its basement.
This is a courageous statement on Nelan’s part, albeit an
understatement. As Seymour Hersh revealed in his book, The
Samson Option, Israel has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction
in underground caverns in the Negev Desert for at least 30 years;
weapons equipped with not only nuclear, but chemical and
bacteriological warheads, all ready to go.
Do they have the will or power actually to use these
weapons? Perhaps they already have. There is the danger,
however – certainly recognized by Hersh – that they, like Samson,
could pull the temple down upon themselves. In order to grasp this
concept fully, we must turn once more to Israel Shahak’s
monumental work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion. Shahak, who
arrived in Palestine in 1945, became an admirer of David Ben-
Gurion. He explains how he became his dedicated opponent:
In 1956, I eagerly swallowed all of Ben-Gurion’s political and
military reasons for Israel initiating the Suez War, until he (in spite of
being an atheist, proud of his disregard of the commandments of Jewish
religion) pronounced in the Knesset on the third day of the war, that the
real reason for it is ‘the restoration of the kingdom of David and
Solomon’ to its Biblical borders.15
Shahak defines those borders as being all of Sinai and a
part of northern Egypt; all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi
Arabia; all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; all

of Lebanon and all of Syria; together with a huge part of Turkey;

and the island of Cyprus.
Is this vast territory still the ultimate goal of Israeli
expansionism? Shakak further states that in May 1993 Ariel
Sharon formally proposed in the Likud Convention that Israel
should adopt the Biblical borders concept as its official policy.
Shahak sees the alternatives that face Israeli-Jewish society:
It can become a fully closed and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta,
supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in existence by its influence
on the US political establishment and by threats to use its nuclear power,
or it can become an open society.
The second choice is dependent on an honest examination of its
Jewish past, or the admission that Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism
exist, and on an honest examination of the attitudes of Judaism towards
the non-Jews.16


In a sidebar, also in Time (9 Feb 1998), Lisa Beyer writes
under a banner “Getting Ready for War” that Israel has developed
plans for battling the Palestinians anew, including one code-named
Field of Thorns, which calls for the retaking of the West Bank
Both sides know two things in advance of another fight: Israel
will win it, and it will be horribly painful. ‘It’ll be much bigger than last
September,’ says an Israeli commander. ‘Much crueler, much bloodier,
much more complicated’.17
Therein, in that succinct statement, is the heart of the
troubles and misery of “civilization” over the past 3,000 years, all
perpetrated by a biblical band of outcasts which history records as
the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with their maniacal thirst for
destruction and revenge forever.
A prolific American writer, Robert Kaplan, whose prose
appears in the liberal Atlantic Monthly as well as the conservative
Wall Street Journal, produced a superlative book in 1996, The
Ends of the Earth, in which he argues that “democracy” is the
source of many problems affecting third world nations. Kaplan

claims that “the barbarians are not only at the gates, but may
already be inside the gates in the shape and form of faceless
gigantic multi-national corporations.”18
The shape and form of the Barbarians Inside the Gates is
actually that of a bicephalous monster – two heads, one body. Far
from being faceless, it is in fact two-faced, one being branded
“Zionist Bolshevism,” the other, “Fabian Socialism.”
This then is the Barbarian Inside the Gates. Has he in fact
taken over?
Edward Luttwak, formerly a student at the London School
of Economics, published Coup d’État - A Practical Handbook,
first in England in 1968 and later by the Harvard University Press
(1979). This work has since been published in all major languages
and received wide distribution about the globe. The Times Literary
Supplement stated that Coup d’État was “an extraordinarily
competent and well-written work, displaying very wide knowledge
of the ways in which coups, both successful and unsuccessful, have
actually been organized.”
Writing the foreword for this amazing piece, Walter
Laqueur stated:
Once upon a time the commander of a tank brigade in a Middle
Eastern country was at least a potential contender for political power.
This is no longer so, partly as a result of centralization in military
command, partly because the political police have become more effective.
But if in these parts coups have become less frequent they are still the
only form of political change that can be envisaged at the present time.19
Which brings us to the here and now, not only in the
Middle East, but especially here in the United States. We must ask
the question: Have the Barbarians already pulled off a de facto
Here is a most pertinent passage from Luttwak’s Coup

If we were revolutionaries, wanting to change the structure of

society, our aim would be to destroy the power of some of the political
forces, and the long and often bloody process of revolutionary attrition
can achieve this. Our purpose, however, is quite different: we want to
seize power within the present system, and we shall only stay in power if
we embody some new status quo supported by those very forces which a
revolution may seek to destroy. Should we want to achieve fundamental
social change we can do so after we have become the government. This
perhaps is a more efficient method (and certainly a less painful one) than
that of the classic revolution.
Though we will try to avoid all conflict with the political forces,
some of them will almost certainly oppose a coup. But this opposition
will largely subside when we have substituted our new status quo for the
old one, and can enforce it by our control of the state bureaucracy and
security forces. This period of transition, which comes after we have
emerged into the open and before we are vested with the authority of the
state, is the most critical phase of the coup. We shall then be carrying out
the dual task of imposing our control on the machinery of state, while at
the same time using it to impose our control on the country at large. Any
resistance to the coup in the one will stimulate further resistance in the
other; if a chain reaction develops the coup could be defeated.20
Our major point to ponder as we go through Barbarians
Inside the Gates is that if a de facto coup has already taken place,
then, in order to avoid a bloody revolution for change, a counter-
coup may be necessary in order to restore the machinery of state
and gain control once more of the critical levers of power.
Think about it seriously, for time is fast running out.
It is always wise before launching a military operation to
review where you have been in a particular campaign. Here,
briefly, is a “thumbnail sketch” of certain momentous events we
will enlarge upon in the following chapters of Barbarians Inside
the Gates.
There were two gigantic propaganda campaigns launched in
1945; one was designed to make the people throughout the United
States, Canada and the United Kingdom aware of something called
“anti-Semitism.” The other, closely related to the first, was to seek

the sympathy of these peoples for the Nazi crime of “Jewish

extermination.” The staging of the Nuremburg Trials was the
instrument used to accomplish both.
Each of these campaigns was based on a colossal blitz of
such astounding proportions that, had it been any other group in the
world, save Talmudic Zionism, each of these hoaxes would have
been laughed out of existence.
These events of 1945 are now culminating in the ongoing
campaign, which is really the third and final phase of world
conquest on the part of Talmudic Zionism wedded to Fabian
Socialism. At this writing, we have the major effort concentrated
in three geographic areas and centered in Russia, Israel and the
United States. This in fact is a major military operation, with
command headquarters occupying two principal locations – New
York City and Washington, DC.
The groundwork was laid by the mathematical
manipulation of the election process in order to place Bill Clinton
in the White House by setting up a “three-way” race. An identical
ploy was used to get the Princeton Professor, Woodrow Wilson, in
as the first Bolshevik “premier-dictator” in 1912.
Wilson was maneuvered and manipulated on a daily basis,
from 1911 until his death, by Edward Mandell House (Huis),
Bernard Baruch, Louis Brandeis, Chaim Weizmann, Stephen
Weiss, Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg. The go-between for most
of the political intrigue was House’s brother-in-law, Sidney Mezes,
who worked with Theodor Marburg of Baltimore, Maryland on the
details of a “League to Enforce Peace.”
The goal (Phase One) was three-fold, all predicated on a
world war: (1) to destroy the Russian monarchy and Christianity in
Russia; (2) to establish a “world government”; and (3) to lay the
groundwork for the establishment of a Jewish “homeland” in

The goal of Phase Two (World War II) was also three-fold:
(1) to occupy Palestine; (2) to set up the “United Nations”; (3) to
spread “Communism” throughout Eastern Europe.
The financial/political operations center shifted from
Europe to the United States during and after Phase One. A
quadrilateral of “premier-dictators” was chosen to bring the goals
of Phase Two to fruition: Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill,
Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. The “advisers” shifted somewhat,
with the “elder statesman,” Bernard Baruch, playing the lead and
supported by Herbert Lehman, Felix Frankfurter, Samuel
Rosenmann, and James Warburg.
As was the case during Phase One, the “advisers” were
actually running the government of the United States, but in
concert with the Supreme Soviet and the Fabian Socialists in
Britain. This “orchestration” continued after World War II and
was enlarged by bringing in the newly created Jewish “Nation of
Israel.” Thereafter, by shifting crises and chaos from the Middle
East to Eastern Europe at will over the next four decades; i.e.,
playing “Zionism” against “Bolshevism,” the “elder statesmen”
created confusion, economic instability and political unreliability
in the countries of Europe and especially in the United States.
While a rather quick thumbnail sketch of the momentous
events of this century, this sets the scene for what is currently
happening. In the ensuing chapters we will get a closer look at
these events and the people who purposely and cunningly brought
them about, i.e., the traitors – several at the highest pinnacle of
government – who deliberately sold us out to the bicephalous
monster with one head labeled Bolshevist Zionism, and the other,
Fabian Socialism.

A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it
cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gate is less
formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against

the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely,
his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls
of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks
in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and
their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and
unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the
body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be
Cicero - 45 BC
(And We Are Losing)

“If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare

himself for battle?”
I Corinthians XIV 8


M Y friends, we are at war… and have been unceasingly since

1933. The major problem is that we don’t realize it. We
have become so accustomed to being under siege by the enemy
within that we don’t realize that we are in fact in a war to the death.
And we are losing… not only the war, but our country.
We now must define that enemy within, his history, his
tactics and his techniques, chief among them being mass
manipulation, coupled to physical and psychological acts of terror.
The enemy within now dominates six of the seven M’s –
Money, Media, Markets, Medical, Mind, Morals. He desperately
needs the seventh M – Muscle – embodied in our military and its
primary function, to defend the Constitution of the United States of
America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Without getting wrapped around the flagpole, that Muscle
has slowly and systematically been sabotaged, first by the murder
of our first Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal (a calculated act
of terror similar to the “removals” of Sen Joe McCarthy and Gen
George Patton), and then by thrusting that military into UN wars of
attrition – no-win wars of both psychological and physical defeat as
planned by that amorphous group of self-aggrandizing and self-

promoting one-worlders who are slowly, slowly strangling us and

our freedom with the binding chains of despotic World
Government. And who have done so steadily since the
assassination of President McKinley in 1901 by one of Emma
Goldman’s “Eastern European émigrés.” Thus began what many
knowledgeable historians call “the Jewish Century.”
Let’s highlight certain current events that point unalterably
and unequivocally to the facts that we are at war and that we are
It is not only the muscle that is atrophying, but the brain
and the guts as well: the intestinal fortitude. We will discover the
breakdown in our moral and ethical outlook in Chapter 11, which
concentrates on brainwashing and mind control. These are tried
and true techniques being used by such as Morton Halperin and his
colleagues in the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), to switch the
role of our military from the “common defense” of the States to
such tasks as “peacekeeping,” “nationbuilding” and
“humanitarianism.” They have envisioned, ever since the founding
of the IPS in 1963, that the US military will become surrogate
global enforcer of their coming one-world Socialist/Bolshevist
Ask yourself a simple question: Is such a blatant act of
subversion a part of a larger scenario for eventual world conquest?
To put subversion in the proper context of what is
happening to us as a nation here and now, let’s consider the
unanimous Senate confirmation of two appointments made on 22
Jan 1997, namely Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State and
William Cohen as Secretary of Defense. One year later (29 Jan
1998), Albright traveled to Paris to convince the French that it was
time to bomb the Iraqis back into the stone age…once more, while
her cohort in crime, Cohen, addressed Congress – our very own
Forum – about the need to pound the peasants of Iraq back into the

stone age to prevent their developing “weapons of mass

Here is an astounding fact: the only country in the Middle
East possessing weapons of mass destruction is the tiny theocracy
of Israel. Mordechai Vanunu, one-time engineer at Israel’s top
secret nuclear complex at Dimona, was kidnapped and returned to
Israel in 1986 for blowing the whistle to the London Times on his
government’s clandestine nuclear weapons program: he was
sentenced to serve 18 years in solitary confinement at Israel’s
Ashkelon prison. Couple that observation with the fact that the
bulk of the reigning elite of the Bolshevik regime presently in
power there are “Jews who are not Jews,” but descendants of a
Turko-Asiatic tribe – the Khazars – who converted en masse to
Judaism in the seventh century. There is not a drop of Semitic
blood in their veins.
Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal took his stand as a patriotic
American when, in 1948, he wrote Israel’s Flag is not Mine. Since
then, he has produced a string of blockbusters, such as The Zionist
Connection, The Other Side of the Coin, and What Price Israel?
In a typically hard-hitting article entitled “What Price
Holocaustomania?” (The Washington Report on Middle East
Affairs – April 1998), Dr. Lilienthal points out:
Even Arabs can be labeled ‘anti-Semitic’, although they are in
fact Semites and do not have to link any claim to the Holy Land to
descent from seventh century converts to Judaism, as do the Ashkenazi
Jews of Europe from whom half the Israelis and most American Jews,
including this writer, are descended.1
In that same scholarly piece, Lilienthal also speaks of
“America’s ‘Israel First’ approach to the Middle East”:
The simplistic ‘Get Saddam’ solution to our resulting troubles
there flourishes with the help of media-drawn similarities to Hitler and the
crying need of opinion molders and politicians to find a new villain, now
that the Evil Empire no longer exists.2
Lilienthal points out that Iraq “certainly poses no threat to
the United States”; yet, it was Secretary of State Madeleine

Albright who in January 1998 toured the Arab countries to win

support for a US military strike against Baghdad. Lilienthal called
her efforts “an abysmal failure.”
He stated that the Arabs questioned obvious US double
standards “seeking to punish Iraq for having defied one United
Nations Security Council resolution while condoning 50 years of
innumerable broken UN resolutions by Israel, which also makes no
effort to conceal the fact it possesses all three forbidden categories
of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical and
To comprehend fully what is in store for us, not only in the
Middle East, but in the Balkans as well, let’s look back at a very
similar period of history when our nation was purposefully dragged
into deadly conflict and internal turmoil during the 1960s – that is,
our ever-increasing commitment of men and materiel to the meat-
grinder war in Vietnam. We who served at fairly high levels
within the Pentagon at the time knew that such a war was
unwinnable – and was meant to be – from the beginning.
A book, The Living and the Dead, subtitled “Robert
McNamara and Five Lives of a Lost War,” by Paul Hendrikson,
brings this out clearly. In the Epilogue, “Because our Fathers
Lied,” he writes in part:
This above all – To thine own self be true. He [McNamara]
wasn’t. It was his greatest lie. He was motivated to help create rational
utopias, and the world disappointed him. Why weren’t they more like he
was? What he lacked, or lost, was intuition. He was not without
American virtues and ideals. But he was terribly ambitious and he was
terribly proud and he became sooner than later terribly arrogant.4
This author was momentarily puzzled by the title of his
epilogue “Because our Fathers Lied.” His daughter, Doneva,
always knowledgeable, solved it by referring him to the February
1997 issue of Vanity Fair and a red-bannered fin de siecle [end of
an era] piece by Christopher Hitchens titled “Young Men and
War.” It had to do with the recent discovery of the body of
Rudyard Kipling’s son, John, in Northern France some 80 years
after he died in the Battle of Loos. Having volunteered when the

war broke out in 1914, John was rejected because of poor eyesight,
but Rudyard used his influence to get the boy a commission in the
Irish Guards. He lasted but a few weeks of the murderous trench
warfare which in the span of fifty months of the Great War
butchered at least ten million soldiers of Britain, France, Germany,
Russia, Turkey and the United States, to say nothing of civilian
On the first day of the Battle of the Somme, July 1916, the
British alone posted more killed and wounded than appear on the whole
of the Vietnam memorial. In the Battle of Verdun, which began the
preceding February, 675,000 lives were lost.5
Hitchens tells us that after Kipling was informed of his
son’s death at age 18, his personality as an author underwent a
deep change. “At different stages, one can see the influence of
parental anguish, of patriotic rage, of chauvinistic hatred, and of
personal guilt. A single couplet almost contrives to compress all
four emotions into one:
If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied. 6
Of course, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. It was
Stalin who said, “To kill one man is murder, to a kill a million, a
statistic.” Much earlier, in 400 BC, Sophocles opined: “Truly, to
tell lies is not honorable; but when the truth entails tremendous
ruin, to speak dishonorably is pardonable.” Even Adolf Hitler
addressed the subject of lying in Mein Kampf: “In the size of the
lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the
great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a great
lie than to a small one.”7
All of these quotes are directly pertinent to the subject at
hand. The art of lying which is now practiced on a daily basis not
only by our government in Washington, DC, but in all the courts
throughout the land, gained credence with “the great masses of the
people” here in the United States following the assassination of
John F Kennedy in 1963 and in the subsequent Warren Report, and
the conduct of LBJ’s war in Vietnam. This author was a first-hand

witness to all those lies and damned lies, as well as the statistics,
throughout the 1960s from his vantage point in the Pentagon,
where he served as Director, Ground Weapons Systems, under
Deputy Secretary of Defense, International Security Assistance
(ISA), John McNaughton.8
Robert Strange McNamara gave President Johnson (LBJ) a
22-page document “Future Actions in Vietnam,” on 19 May 1967.
Essentially, the paper said that the US could not win the war and
should seek the least unsatisfactory peace.9
The picture of the world’s greatest superpower killing 1,000
noncombatants a week, while trying to pound a tiny backward nation into
submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty
The memo acknowledged that “the enemy has us
‘stalemated’ and has the capability to tailor his actions to his
supplies and manpower…the enemy can – almost certainly will –
maintain the military stalemate by matching our added
deployments as necessary.”11
Two months later to the day, 19 July 1967, John
McNaughton, his wife and youngest son were killed in a freak air
accident when their commercial 727 collided over North Carolina
with a twin-engine general aviation aircraft. Unfortunately, he was
replaced as head of ISA by Paul Warnke, a member of the
Marxist/Leninist IPS. He would bring on board such colleagues as
Morton Halperin, Leslie Gelb and Adam Yarmolinsky.
A few days before the 19 May memo, McNaughton sent a
short blurb up to McNamara: “a feeling is widely and strongly held
(around the country) that the Establishment is out of its mind.”12
Most of the military types who worked for McNaughton
were not reluctant to voice such an opinion – that the
Establishment was indeed out of its mind – going way back to
1963, following the murder of JFK and the escalation of troop
commitments to another unwinnable land war on the Asian

They were overruled and often overwhelmed by the

Harvard and Rhodes scholars who had infiltrated the inner
workings of the Establishment, especially the Kennedy entourage,
many who lingered on and reinforced “our crowd” of
internationalists, Fabian Socialists, fellow-travelers and outright
Bolshevists such as the Bundy brothers (William and McGeorge),
Walt Whitman Rostow, Morton Halperin, Paul Nitze, Harold
Brown, Paul Ignatius, Alain Enthoven, John Deutch, Phil
Goulding, Sol Horowitz, Adam Yarmolinsky, Henry Glass, and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Lyman Lemnitzer. At least 90% of
the top echelon was comprised of “Jews who were not Jews” and
“Christians who were not Christian.” Each was also a member in
good standing of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations
Here – 35 years later – are just a few names plucked from
the dominant news media during one month in 1998: Albright,
Cohen, Berger, Rubin, Glickman, Greenspan, Wolfensohn,
Feinstein, Freeh, Barshefsky, Liebermann, Morris, Kantor,
Magaziner. During that same month, Steve Grossman, formerly
head of America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) became
Chairman, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Marvin Rosen
became finance chairman of the DNC, and Eli Segal became chief
DNC fundraiser. All were members of the CFR.14
“We wage war to bring peace.” So bragged the inimitable
Henry Kissinger in 1971 (when Nixon’s National Security
Adviser). This Orwellian doublespeak prevails today in our
culture-distorting society. We can call it: Bleeding for the
Unfortunately, this disease infected our military leaders
during the Vietnam debacle as well. One who saw through it was
Colonel David Hackworth, our most decorated veteran of that
misbegotten era.
In 1969 Hackworth returned to Vietnam for his third tour.
He waged a lonely battle against the Viet Cong in the Mekong
Delta, accounting for over 2,700 enemy killed in action (KIA),

with a loss of less than 25 of his soldiers in his all-draftee infantry

Yet, he knew the war was being badly bungled and so
informed his bosses, Generals William Westmoreland (CFR) and
Harold K Johnson (CFR). They stonewalled him. Later, he would
Why did all these colonels and generals who knew the truth…
who knew the war was not winnable, that there was no objective, that
tactics were wrong, why did they keep sending men into a chain saw to be
ripped apart? Why didn’t somebody say, ‘enough is enough?’15
Unfortunately for our Country, the colonels and generals
were not in charge. The Internationalists were, and those selfsame
high-ranking officers lacked the guts to do what a few German
officers attempted in 1944… to knock off Hitler.
McNamara published “The Essence of Security” on the day
he resigned as Secretary of Defense (29 Feb 1968). The journalist,
Ward Just, wrote (12 Sep 1968) in the Washington Post:
It is somehow indecent that the man who bestrode the
enlargement of the war for seven years and was now ensconced in the
World Bank could cobble together a collection of his speeches and
statements, call it a book, and barely mention Southeast Asia and what he
had done there.16
Years later, David Halberstam, author of The Best and the
Brightest, wrote:
… Robert McNamara, one of the most disturbingly flawed civil
servants of this era. In truth, McNamara lied and deceived the senate and
the press and the public. He consistently lied to the nation about the
levels of increment of troops. But his greatest crime, like that of his
colleague, McGeorge Bundy, was the crime of silence.17
In 1983 McNamara (then 67) appeared on a panel following
an NBC TV movie called “The Day After,” a drama about a town
in Kansas after a nuclear attack. Hendrikson writes: “Of all the
panelists – Henry Kissinger, Carl Sagan, Elie Weisel – McNamara
seemed to me the most human and humble.”18

The movie was a total farce and the panel a cross between
Dante and Disney…three Jews and a contrite fallen-away Catholic.
The theme, of course, was the threat and the promise, right out of
the Babylonian Talmud.
McNamara never comprehended that he was being sorely
used, just as they had used him from the moment he became the
Secretary of Defense in 1961 until he walked away from it in
February 1968…the culpable goyim. The fact is that such people
as McNamara and Dean Rusk, Bill Rogers and Mel Laird, as well
as LBJ and Nixon, were subverted by a cohesive group who had
burrowed within the government with but one mission in mind; to
render ineffective that government and its Constitution – and its
military, whose only mission is to defend that Constitution from all
enemies foreign and domestic.
Whittaker Chambers in Witness aptly describes how these
people inveigle themselves into the policy-making apparatus of the
government and gradually take over the inner workings, as did
Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White (Weiss).
Chambers’ former Communist colleague, Elizabeth
Bentley, in 1953 stated in testimony to a special sub-committee of
the US Senate on internal security that the espionage agents with
whom she had been in contact had been working for the Soviet
NKVD (secret service) and that they were “primarily employees of
the United States Government stationed in Washington DC.” She
named individuals within State, Treasury, Defense, the OSS (later
CIA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission.19
Senator Homer Ferguson asked: “What were your avenues
for placing people in strategic positions?”
Miss Bentley:
I would say that two of our best were Harry Dexter White and
Lauchlin Currie. They had an immense amount of influence and knew
people and their word would be accepted when they recommended
Ferguson asked her if there were others.

Yes, I mean whomever we had as an agent in the Government
would automatically serve for putting someone else in. For example,
Maurice Halperin was head of the Latin American Section in OSS, and
we used him to get Helen Tenney in. Once we got one person in he got
others, and the whole process continued like that. 20
In the sub-committee report to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, titled “Interlocking Subversion in Government
Departments” (30 Jul 1953), such other names were included as
Nathan Silvermaster, William Ulman, George Silverman, Victor
Perlo, John Abt, Sol Leshinsky, George Perazich, Harold Glasser,
Julius Joseph, Michael Greenberg and Bernard Redmont. The sub-
committee stated:
They (the Communists) used each other’s names for reference…
They hired each other. They promoted each other. They raised each
other’s salaries. They transferred each other from Bureau to Bureau, from
Congressional committee to Congressional committee. They assigned
each other to international committees. They vouched for each other’s
loyalty and protected each other when exposure threatened.…21
The Sub-committee stated that “virtually all were graduates
of American universities. Many had doctorates or similar ratings
of academic and intellectual distinction…some were teachers.”22
The identical situation prevails today; only the names have
changed. Check your President’s close advisers and his Cabinet
appointments. Make a list of the key people who are featured in
the mainline media “news” for just one week.
These are not the sons of Erin!

THE Washington Post ran a semi-adulatory piece on former

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his new self-critical
memoir, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (9
Apr 1995). Because this author worked directly for McNamara
and his Deputy Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs (ISA) as the Director for Ground Weapons Systems during
those hectic and tragic years, he has a personal and abiding interest,
not only in what the Washington Post might have to say about it,
but in the McNamara “confessions.”22
Why was McNamara, at age 78, spilling his guts and
apparently taking the blame for those misbegotten years of
committing our military forces into the bottomless pit of a no-win
war on the mainland of China? Let’s look more closely at the
article for clues. Is he magnanimously taking the blame on his own
shoulders for simply carrying out the edicts of the real
perpetrators? Or, is he guilt-ridden to the point where he just
might don sackcloth and ashes, enter a monastery and do penance
for the rest of his life?
Bear in mind that during the early part of the so-called
Vietnam War, McNamara constantly questioned our commitment,
and finally resigned during the latter part of the Johnson
Administration, leaving Secretary of State Dean Rusk and LBJ
himself to carry the torch for “Communist containment in Asia.”
They in turn passed that torch to Nixon and his national security
advisor, Henry Kissinger, to pursue the no-win policy for another
eight seemingly unending years.
Is McNamara now absolving all those culpable, including
our premier traitor, Henry Kissinger?
The Washington Post states that McNamara assigns himself
“much of the blame for the most tragic international misadventure
in this nation’s history.”23

According to McNamara: “The war could and should have

been avoided and should have been halted at several key junctures
after it started.” He states that other senior advisers to LBJ, as well
as himself, “failed to head it off through ignorance, inattention,
flawed thinking, political expediency and lack of courage.”24
This just doesn’t wash. He is speaking of “the best and the
brightest,” others who, for whatever reason, were playing a major
role and who devoted nearly every waking hour to ever-greater
commitments of troops and resources into the Vietnam quagmire.
They, such as Paul Warnke, Paul Nitze, Mort Halperin, Adam
Yarmolinsky, the Bundy brothers, Walt Whitman Rostow, and
Dean Rusk; and such paratroopers and combat troop commanders
as Max Taylor, William Westmoreland and Bob Gard, were all
members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Here is more from that Post article. Please sprinkle
liberally with salt:
Even when he and Johnson’s other aides knew that their Vietnam
strategy had little chance for success, according to McNamara, they
pressed ahead with it, ravaging a beautiful country and sending young
Americans to their deaths year after year, because they had no other
Let’s pause a moment and contemplate this statement, for it
continues to represent a gross cove-up. Our role in the area known
as French Indochina really began in 1945, as WW II wound down.26
We were simply following a bloody set of footprints laid down by
our first imperial president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As these
bloody prints wend their way down a rocky road to a global
government under a “United Nations,” the imperialists
(Universalists) needed to establish a global UN army which could
– and would – use maximum force and advanced technology to
utterly destroy sovereign nations and their military forces. To get
there, it became necessary to involve our military in another no-
win war on the Asian mainland. Its calculated purpose, as carried
out by LBJ and his chief foreign policy duo – Secretary of Defense
McNamara and Secretary of State Rusk – was to defeat and
humiliate that military.

Perhaps the most difficult factor to comprehend about Bob

McNamara – especially for those of us who worked directly for
him during those crucial years of our unsavory commitment to
another undeclared war on the mainland of China – was his almost
overnight conversion from the chief war hawk of the
administration to a fluttering peace dove. Some attributed it to the
sudden illness of his lovely wife, Margaret, and her subsequent
death; others wondered if it was just another act in an ongoing
tragedy staged by those who would control the world.
To grasp the significance of all this, we should be aware of
another top secret paper prepared by the Hudson Institute in 1963,
entitled Report From Iron Mountain. It relates directly to the
carefully planned and executed no-win war in Vietnam from 1964
to May 1975. Secretary of Defense McNamara commissioned the
study. The Hudson Institute, located at the base of Iron Mountain
in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, was founded and directed by
Herman Kahn, formerly of the Rand Corporation. Like
McNamara, he was a member of the CFR. The 15 “fellows” who
produced the study – including Henry Kissinger (Heinz Kissingen)
– were also members of the CFR.
The overall purpose of that study, as emphasized by G.
Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, “was to
analyze different ways a government can perpetuate itself in power,
ways to control its citizens and prevent them from rebelling.”
The major conclusion of the study, according to Griffin,
was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to
achieve that goal:
Only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses
compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint.
Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden
seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human
passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation’s leaders. No
amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is
viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of
high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become
disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government

has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore,
has been an indispensable condition for ‘stabilizing society’.26
Griffin then outlines the new definition of “peace,” which
was embodied in the report. The “fellows” who produced the
report predicted a time when it would be possible to create a world
government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined
by a world army, a condition that will be called peace. The report
says: “The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages…
implies total and general disarmament.”
Griffin, who published his work in 1994, accurately
predicted the events that have taken place, and are currently taking
place, in smaller sovereign states about the world:
Under that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and
governments will not have the capability to wage war. There could be
military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions,
but these would be called peacekeepers. No matter how much property is
destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be ‘peaceful’
bullets and the bombs – even the atomic bomb, if necessary – will be
‘peaceful’ bombs.27
The study was eventually published in 1967, under the title,
Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of
Peace. The participants considered whether there could ever be a
suitable substitute for war. They concluded that there can be no
substitute for war unless it possesses three properties: It must: (1)
be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great
magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service
to the government.28
The study examined “the time-honored use of military
institutions to provide anti-social elements with an acceptable role
in the social structure… the incorrigible subversives, and the rest
of the unemployable are seen as somehow transformed by the
disciplines of a service modeled on military precedent into more or
less dedicated social service workers… Another possible surrogate
for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction,
in some form consistent with modern technology and political

processes, of slavery…the logical first step would be the adoption

of some form of ‘universal’ military service.”29
The study also emphasizes that if a suitable substitute for
war is to be found, a new enemy must be discovered that threatens
the entire world:
Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy…the
enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely formidable…that
power must be one of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness.30
The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution
of the environment, according to Griffin. “It might even be
necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the
predictions seem more convincing. In this fashion, it would be
possible to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more
fearful and cruel than any invader from another nation – or even
from outer space.”31
The study stresses that truth is not important in defining a
substitute for war; it’s what people can be made to believe that
counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality. This is perhaps the
key to understanding the seeming dichotomy of a man such as Bob
McNamara. After all, he did not don sackcloth and ashes after his
mea culpa regarding the Vietnam War. Instead, he was offered –
and eagerly accepted – the presidency of the World Bank following
his resignation as Secretary of Defense.
Perhaps most telling about the man and his internationalist
associates is a speech made by David Rockefeller, founder and
director of the World Bank, at the farewell dinner for McNamara
when he stepped down from that exalted position:
The world that we have worked to construct is threatened. The
gravity of this moment, when Mr. McNamara and others are about to
leave their posts while a new administration re-examines American
foreign aid policy, is great. If we are going to save the international
institutions we have put in place, the moment is now or never, for the
struggle between the old guard and the new is going to go far beyond the
reduction of capital appropriations. It is going to endanger the new world
order which we have based on the alliance between Wall Street and
Washington. While we men of firms and banks organize international

channels of economy and raw materials, the government is now building

its own diplomatic and economic bridges between Washington and
foreign governments. By our methods, our governments contribute to the
stability and economic growth of the world, our multinationals benefit,
and when it is necessary, they contribute their political support. Now
radical conservatives are attempting to destroy all that in seeking first and
foremost to serve the national interests of the United States.32
All of these seeming contradictions and dichotomies relate
directly to the carefully planned and executed no-win war in
Vietnam from 1964 to 1975. It was all a set piece. They had no
other plan because they didn’t need another plan. It is as simple as
This fact is better explained in the writings of L. Fletcher
Prouty, Colonel, USAF (Ret). A pilot in Africa and the Middle
East during World War II, Prouty would later become the chief
liaison between the Defense Department and the CIA. He was the
real-life role model for the character of Mr. X in the Oliver Stone
film JFK. Prouty reveals the real story behind McNamara’s “Book
of Confession” in an article carried in The Barnes Review (Dec
1995) and a later issue (May 1996) in which he discloses the fatal
connection between “The Military-Industrial Complex and the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution.”33
Prouty states that, as taught in the war colleges, the most
important of the nine classic principles of war is the “military
objective.” If the commander-in-chief has no positive attainable
military objective, no victory can be achieved. This was evident
from the start of the fracas in Vietnam, and was the driving reason
behind JFK’s decision to get our troops out. What we see
unfolding in Kosovo, Serbia, today, under the sorry misdirection of
Bill Clinton, is a repeat of this sad scenario. To echo Col
Hackworth’s succinct question: “Why didn’t the generals say
‘enough is enough’?”

Nowhere is this more in evidence than in a column by

another retired colonel, Harry Summers, featured in the
Washington Times (28 Apr 1999):
The ongoing debacle in the Balkans begs the question: ‘How
could Gen Shelton and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen Wesley Clark,
the NATO commander, be party to this obviously unplanned,
uncoordinated and unfocused fiasco? … In so doing, they have done
neither their soldiers, their country, nor their president any favor by their
failure to speak up…34
There is no better evidence that we violated (on purpose)
that cardinal principle of war than that contained in Clark
Clifford’s remarkable book Counsel to the President wherein, as
Secretary of Defense, Clifford met with the then President Lyndon
B. Johnson, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the military advisor to
the president, Walt Rostow, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
Earle Wheeler, on 21 May 1968. Clifford told the illustrious
With the limitations placed on our military – no invasion of the
north, no mining of the harbors, no invasion of the sanctuaries – we have
no plans or chance to win the war.35
As Prouty states in his article:
Clifford, a most experienced man in the ways of Washington, as
well as the Secretary of Defense, had to ask the president, the
commander-in-chief, what the military objective of our presence in
Vietnam was. Lyndon Johnson gave him no substantive reply.36
That particular trail of deceit wends it way back to a most
important document issued by President Kennedy on 11 Oct 1963,
the National Security Action Memorandum (NASM) #263. In this
document – virtually ignored by McNamara in his book – are
“Conclusions and Recommendations” which state that the military
campaign in the Northern and Central Areas should be complete by
the end of 1964, and in the Delta by the end of 1965, when “the
essential functions performed by US military personnel can be
carried out by Vietnamese… It should be possible to withdraw the
bulk of US personnel by that time.”37

Alas, there were other forces at play, best described by

Prouty with a quote from the renowned book by Alexis de
Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835) in which war is
The inevitable growth of democracy [will] also lead to despotism
and militarism. While peace is peculiarly hurtful to democratic armies,
war and all its popular passions gives them advantages which cannot fail
in the end to give them victory.38
De Tocqueville clarified this point with a statement that is
most pertinent to any definition of “modern” war. It was not only
the driving force behind the Vietnam War, but is most applicable
today with the United States government (now an Imperium)
actions in several staged “hot spots” about the globe, particularly in
the Middle East and in the Balkans. Here is de Tocqueville:
The secret connection between the military character and that of
the democracies was the profit motive. 39
In his subsequent article on the contrived “Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution,” Col. Prouty enlarged on this aspect, stating:
The case of Vietnam serves as a textbook example of the manner
in which wars are manufactured. Beyond the question of how – or
whether – the US should have fought the war, other questions of great
national import are involved. Insider manipulations at the highest levels
ensured the conflict’s escalation into a protracted, extremely costly
venture in terms of both blood and treasure. As brave young Americans
died by the tens of thousands, well-connected politicians, financiers and
industrialists made fortunes, while their own sons stayed home, safely
ensconced in institutions of higher learning.40
Prouty points out that at the time of JFK’s assassination
there were less than 16,000 military personnel in Vietnam, “of
whom fewer than 2,000 were military advisors; an involvement
that had begun with a series of CIA-controlled covert operations.”41
NSAM #263, which Kennedy published just prior to his
death, stipulated, among other things, that 1,000 servicemen would
be brought home by Christmas and that all US personnel (not
limited to military personnel) would be out of Vietnam by the end
of 1965.42

So, what happened? Prouty states:

[T]hey wanted him out of the way, because they felt that he
would be re-elected in 1964, and would then be in a position to carry out
his NSAM #263 policy. So the president’s murder was ordered to be
done by a professional ‘hit team’. This was also LBJ’s conclusion as
expressed shortly before his death in an interview published in the 19 Jul
1973 issue of Atlantic Monthly.43
President Johnson completely reversed the Kennedy policy
less than four months after assuming office. On 16 Mar 1964, LBJ
signed NSAM # 288 that stated:
We seek an independent non-Communist South Vietnam.…
Unless we can achieve this objective in South Vietnam, almost all of
Southeast Asia will probably fall under Communist dominance. Thus,
purely in terms of foreign policy, the stakes are high.44
How high? Prouty states that the usual “all up” figure given
for the cost of the Vietnam War is $570 billion.45
In retrospect, McNamara admits that had that war never
been fought, Communism would have prevailed in Asia, and the
international strategic position of the United States would be no
worse than it is today. That is a true statement, and today we are
paying the price in spades for losing not only the Vietnam War, but
our country.
McNamara tells us that he has grown sick at heart
witnessing the cynicism and even contempt with which so many
people view our political institutions and leaders. Let’s not
immediately acknowledge this calculated “sympathy factor” until
we look at other “political institutions and leaders.” McNamara
did not bring about the Vietnam holocaust all by himself.
There is a truism, the Peter Principle, that if you stay long
enough (in either military or civil service), you will eventually be
promoted to a level beyond your competence. This is especially
true within the bureaucracy of the United Nations.
The unalterable fact is that the formation of a United
Nations, and the League of Nations before that, was instigated by a
very powerful political alignment between International Zionism

and Fabian Socialism with the stated purpose of forming a one-

world government under a “League of the Just” (which had
commissioned the Communist Manifesto) and to create an all-
powerful military force under that government for “peacekeeping.”
All of this leads to the conclusion that little has changed
since the issuance of the 1953 Senate Internal Security report
“Interlocking Subversions in Government Departments.” That
report concluded:
There is a mass of evidence and information on the hidden
Communist conspiracy in Government that is inaccessible to the FBI and
to this subcommittee because persons who know the facts of the
conspiracy are not cooperating with the security authorities of the
Alas, since that time, these very same “security authorities”
have been badly subverted as well, not only the FBI and the CIA,
but the jack-booted thugs in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (BATF) which has become the willing and criminally
culpable handmaiden of the Israeli Mossad and British intelligence.
This is the title of a hard-hitting article in the February
1997 American Spectator by Tom Bethell which blasts complacent
conservatives who, according to Bethell, are blind to the evil forces
in our midst. He says:
Most conservatives – by which I mean normal people – have
little conception of the aggressive and revolutionary force that confronts
them. It is a revolutionary force, in the sense that it seeks to overturn the
existing order, but it differs from the spirit of Marx and Lenin in that it
never proclaims itself openly.47
Here in the US, Bethell tells us, “most people don’t
understand that they are in a war” and “normal Americans who do
sense the conflict shrink from the fight.” Why is this? He outlines
some interesting reflections contained in an issue of Heterodoxy.
They note the unwillingness of most conservatives to play
offense. The left is constantly the aggressive force. Confronted with the
threat of this fury, the conservative instinct is to retreat, to back off, to

retire into the gated community, into private life, to withdraw from the
public school and to teach children at home, to retreat to the rural eyrie.
They want to be left alone and most would gladly settle for that.48
Bethell points to the remote mountain top of Ruby Ridge,
Idaho, whereon the Weaver family was pursued and gunned down
by federal agents, as being a better symbol of the war we are in
than is Oklahoma City. “They want to leave us no place to hide.”49
Where is the counter-reformation? Where are the leaders who
will be needed to launch a counteroffensive? Think of Bush and Dole and
How can we win this war we are in – and are surely losing,
just as we lost the war in Vietnam – when so many of our would-be
warriors shun the fight? Let’s go back to the guidance of the
warfare experts, such as Claustwitz, Tsun Tsu, and, yes, even
Thomas Aquinas; first we must define the enemy, then marshal our
forces, go on the offensive and overwhelm him in the cultural
arena and on the political battlements.
In a gut-grabbing commentary (Washington Times 30 May
1999), B. K. Eakman asks that question, then pointedly answers it:
We lost because we failed to apply the strategic lessons of
warfare to the attack on our culture. We lost because we gave away the
psychological environment. We spent 30 years playing by our opponents’
rules of engagement instead of forcing them to play by ours.51
In his exceptionally revealing book, Cloning of the
American Mind, Eakman also asks the question: “How did we
We lost by basing our strategy on wishful thinking instead of the
realities of war, by allowing turf battles to split our alliances, by treating
our allies like competition instead of welcoming them as friends. If we
are to save our way of life in the coming century, individuals of principle
will have to don the mentality of the resistance fighter. We no longer
have the luxury of time for righteous indignation.52
In sum, we have two choices: we can surrender
unconditionally to the enemy within; or we can fight. There are no

other choices, and time is fast running out. If we choose the latter,
we had best unsheath our swords and join Horatius at the bridge.
(Selecting a Military Traitor)

United by the strongest bonds of organization, always in closest

and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of
every business capital of every State, controlled by men of a single
and peculiar race, they are in a unique position to manipulate the
policy of nations.
J. A. Hobson in Imperialism: A Study (1902)


I Ntheblatant violation of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of

United States, the Congress of the United States adopted the
Federal Reserve Act (HR 7837) on 23 Dec 1913, thereby
transferring the power to borrow money on the credit of the United
States, and the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof,
from the Congress to a cartel of international bankers.
By this illegal act, the financial destiny of America was
removed from the control of its citizens to that of a coterie of arch-
criminals who have assumed total control of the nation’s financial
In a previous chapter we discussed the need to control the
seven levers of power in order to take over a country and its
peoples. When any group for whatever reason grabs for these
seven levers of power they actually commit an act of political
warfare. In earlier chapters, we saw how the Bolsheviks practiced
the art of grabbing and centralizing all power, not only in Russia in
1917, but especially in the United States in 1933.

In order to assume total control, these “gangster-statesmen”

must create monopolies. Those of you who have played Parker
Brothers’ famous game of Monopoly understand that the driving
force behind it is the accumulation of money in order to purchase
properties, then to construct houses and hotels, until the winner
ends up not only with all the play money, but all the properties as
well. It’s a fun kind of game to while away a quiet evening at home
by the fireside, and whether you win or lose you can retire to a
warm bed and a satisfying sleep.
To understand how the game of Monopoly is played in real
life, one must understand the Money Power and how it plays the
game. This tightly knit group is an international network whose
sole goal is gain. These international financiers know how to play
Monopoly, for they wrote the rules, and even now, make periodic
adjustments to those rules, always to their collective benefit.
The monopolists are driven by their innate need to
accumulate and dominate. They seek to monopolize trade by
instituting “free trade” – first of goods, then of money –
represented by the trading in stocks and bonds, as well as the
selling of money at usury.
This group recognizes that to create a monopoly, they must
first buy and control a triad of organizations:
1) The governing power, whether prince or president, a
political coalition or party, as well as all the visible power brokers,
the law-makers, the law interpreters and related bureaucracies.
2) The media, including the whole spectrum of means to
manipulate the minds of the masses…press, periodicals, radio, TV,
3) The money market, including a stock exchange, a
commodities market, and a central bank, used not only to print the
currency, but also to set its value and control its distribution.
With the help of Professor Carroll Quigley and his
voluminous 1958 epic, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World
in Our Time, we will look first of all to France, for as that once-

great country rose and fell by the machinations of the money

changers, so are doing these once great United States (currently
well on the way to the financial and fiscal bottom).
Quigley calls it financial capitalism. While we should be
leery of statistics, they do have a place. He outlines the statistics
on the issuance of fraudulent securities during the 1850s in France.
There, the excesses perpetrated by the Money Power were worse
than in Britain or Germany, “although they were not to be
compared with the excesses of frenzy and fraud displayed in the
United States.”1
Quigley reveals that between 1854-55 a total of 457 new
companies, with a combined capital of one billion francs, were
formed in France. By early 1856 the losses to security buyers were
so great that the government had to prohibit temporarily any further
Gross thievery and systematic monetary and market
manipulation were the real causes of the fall of France in 1940.
In a period of 30 years – from 1899 to 1929 – over 300
billion francs were stolen by the Money Power from the French
people by manipulation of worthless securities. The identical ploy
is currently being used against the US people by issuance of junk
bonds and the overvaluation of stocks, along with wild
manipulations of commodity prices.
Quigley explains how it was done to the French. During
that period of what he calls financial capitalism, approximately 40
families owned the ten largest private banks that, in turn,
controlled the central bank of France.
Two banks dominated; one Jewish, the Banque de Paris et
des Pays Bas (Paribas), controlled by the Rothschilds and their
cousins, Rene Mayer and Horace Finaly; and the Union Parisienne,
founded by a non-Jewish bloc in 1901.2

Within this banking brotherhood, these two giants

cooperated in matters monetary; however, as their influence spread
into the commercial/industrial fields, competition was severe,
which led during the period 1932-40 to a death struggle for pre-
eminent power. It was also one of the leading causes of the
planned conflagration known as World War II.
The Jewish group went after shipbuilding, communications,
transportation, public utilities; the non-Jewish group emphasized
iron, steel and armaments.
Here we get a glimpse of the embryo of what became the
“Bicephalous Monster” in our own society – one head Anglo-
American, the other Jewish.
Picture the early rivalry of the two groups as they went after
worldwide control of petroleum products. Basically, Paribas
(Rothschild) allied itself with Standard Oil (Rockefeller), while
Union Parisienne (Union Comité) controlled Royal Dutch Shell.3
The oil combine today, under the Bicephalous Monster, is
known as the “Seven Sisters.” They control oil production
worldwide, and brought about the Yom Kippur war in October
1973, with the consequent and planned skyrocketing price of crude.
This put the squeeze on Japan and Western Europe, especially, and
brought about hyperinflation and runaway interest rates in the
United States under Carter and his “boss,” Paul Volcker.
It is highly important to recognize at this time that during
the first half of the twentieth century, the international (Jewish)
cabal gradually took over control from their “allies,” the Anglo-
Saxon, Freemasonic Money Power, and subverted finance from
constructive projects – industrial development – to destructive ones
– war making. This was a continuation of nihilism (nothing can be
known, for nothing exists); of bloody revolution as practiced
against the Russians by the Zionists, with the aim of completely
destroying existing institutions.
Warning! This philosophy is still alive and well! To date,
with the exception of the inner cities, it is non-bloody here in the

US. This could undergo a radical shift following the year 2000, to
coincide with a major market crash.
In France (and later, in the United States) the two blocs
vied for control of government in such arenas as director of
finance, and governor of the Bank of France. In order to
monopolize control over labor, they fought for control of the
various trade associations.
In similar moves, using intermarriage and integration by
family alliances, along with interlocking directorates, the blocs
gained control of the coalfields and railroading. In this latter area,
the Rothschild railroad monopoly extended into the US, where the
Harrimans were brought into the fold.
Here is another statistic, just to give us order of magnitude.
In 1936 there were about 800 firms of any import in France, most
of them registered on the Paris stock exchange. Paribas controlled
400, while Union-Comite dominated 300.4
Paribas gained absolute control over communications,
which included the media. Quigley explains that:
Havas was a great monopolistic news agency, as well as the most
important advertising agency in France. It could, and did, suppress or
spread both news and advertising. It usually supplied news reports gratis
to those papers that would print the advertising copy it also provided. It
received secret subsidies from the government for almost a century (a fact
first revealed by Balzac) and by late 1930 these subsidies from the secret
funds of the Popular Front had reached a fantastic size.
Hachette had a monopoly on the distribution of periodicals and a
sizable portion of the distribution of books. This monopoly could be used
to kill papers that were regarded as objectionable. This was done in the
1930s to Francis Coty’s reactionary L’Ami du Peuple.5
Without getting deeply mired in the politics of the times
which led to World War II and the rapid defeat of France as a
viable power, we must take a look at Paribas (Rothschild) and its
support of the leftist Popular Front, particularly of Rothschild
money being funneled into Soviet Russia (Jewish-controlled from
the top down, from 1917 to date) and to the Loyalists – that is to
say, the Bolshevists – in Spain.

The Rothschilds were not alone in their financial support of

Bolshevism and subsequently Communism under the Third
International; such Money Powers as the Warburgs of Germany
and the US, as well as the Schiffs, fed millions of marks and
dollars into the coffers of the collectivists.
William Shirer, a foreign correspondent who lived in
France and Germany during World War II and the prior years of
the 1930s – and who leans left, as opposed to what he frequently
calls the Radical Right – gives us remarkable insights into the
collapse of the Third Republic (an inquiry into the fall of France in
1940), as well as the rise and fall of the Third Reich.
In the foreword, he talks of how all the savagery came
about; he dumps it into the lap of Christianity, which is as good a
scapegoat as any. We still have active elements of this school in
the US. If nihilism is to prevail – and at this writing, it appears that
it will – Christianity must be destroyed. Shirer says:
I wrote of the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and how it came that
a cultured Christian people lapsed into barbarism in the midst of the 20th
century, gladly abandoning their freedoms and the ordinary decencies of
human life and remaining strangely indifferent to the savagery with which
they treated other nations, other races. 6
He quotes the famous French poet-diplomat Paul Claudel,
who once observed, “It is not enough to know the past, it is
necessary to understand it.”
It was Exalted French Grand Orient (Masonic) Potentate
Leon Blum, Zionist and one of the principal architects of the
Popular Front coalition, who emerged as premier after the 1936
elections, which saw the Socialists and Communists win a strong
majority in the Chamber of Deputies.
Thus, we set the stage for what Quigley calls the fantastic
size of the secret funds that the Popular Front poured into Havas,
the great monopolistic news agency that could and did manipulate
and suppress the “news.” This, coupled with the driving need of

the Rothschilds and their various cousins to form an alliance with

Soviet Russia and support the Communists in the Spanish Civil
War, brought about the deep divisiveness in France which led to
early defeat in 1940.7
Let’s leap back quickly to the beginnings of the Third
Republic in 1872, where we see the concerted effort to de-
Christianize France (a practice currently ongoing in the US).
Led by a coalition of Socialists and Radical Republicans in
Parliament, a well-organized effort to destroy the influence of the
Catholic Church was launched. The first target was education,
administered mainly by the Church.
Jules Ferry began the persecution in 1880s, by introducing a
series of legislative enactments that prohibited religious education
in the public schools (do you see any parallels?). Members of
religious orders were banned from teaching in the public schools.
At that time, half the boys and nearly all the girls attended
parochial schools. One wonders whether they taught les innocents
such subjects as sex education and secular humanism.
In most of the villages the only schools were Catholic, and
in the few public schools most of the teachers were nuns, monks or
priests. At this time, Ferry cut off all public funds to the parochial
In 1901 the Association Act, which was designed to curb
the influence of the religious orders, was passed. This was aimed
especially at the Assumptionists, an articulate and vocal anti-
republican religious group. Waldeck-Rosseau, the Premier, did not
wish to attack the religious orders, but was overridden by the
coalition. He resigned and was replaced by “a man of a different
stripe,” Emile Combes, a fanatical radical.9
Combes was a fallen-away Catholic who had once studied
for the priesthood. Three weeks into office, he shut down all
primary schools for girls run by the religious sisters. A month
later, he gave the 3,000 parochial schools eight days to shut down
for good.

He then tackled what he considered the main enemy, the

congregations or religious orders. With a stroke of the pen, he
dissolved all 54 of them. Some 20,000 monks, brothers and priests
fled France for other countries.
The curtain was coming down on Christianity in France.
Hostility against Christianity was the order of the day. (We see the
same sort of virulent hatred expressed openly and covertly in the
US today.) Shirer wrote: “Freemasonry helped to keep the fires
In an effort to wipe out Catholic influence in the army, the
Republican Minister of War, General Andre, enlisted the aid of the
Masonic lodges to weed out all Catholics from the officer corps.
“In many ways the army proved more difficult to deal with
than the Church,” says Shirer. “The great military chiefs, with
scarcely an exception, were Catholic and Royalist. To expel all of
them would have weakened the army fatally.”11
And so, in France, the way was paved for the fall. First, by
destroying the absolutes, along with the influence of the Church,
then fostering the rise of the new religion – secular humanism –
part and parcel of the new majority in Parliament, the Socialists.
From all this emerged, as planned, “the war to end all
wars,” the first war to make the world safe for democracy,
followed by the also-planned and brilliantly-executed market
manipulations leading to the Great Crash of 1929, and the
depression which destroyed the middle class of several countries,
not the least France.
From this agglomeration sprang the two socialist
totalitarian dictators, once partners, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin,
whose rise to power was financed by the same oligarchical
hofjudean families, especially those in the United States and
Germany. Of course, Stalin (Steel) also robbed banks.
And simultaneously came the rise to supremacy in the
world financial markets of the international Zionist oligarchy, the

now-dominant head of the Bicephalous Monster – the destructive

These events led naturally to the second war to make the
world safe for democracy, which not only brought about the
heinous butchery of civilians as well as soldiers, but the massive
and heretofore unimaginable destruction of entire cities.
It also brought about the “New Order,” the entrenchment of
Bolshevism, then spreading like a cancer from Soviet Russia
throughout the world.
Why? Initially for the bottom line – the pure profit motive,
but then, shifting gradually and inexorably to the insatiable thirst
for power – absolute despotic control. The first defined “master
race” in recorded history referred to the Chosen Few, who will
reign supreme as Lords of the World. And all the rest, the goyim,
or cattle, will be enslaved. It’s in the book!
The inviolable formula remains constant: Knowledge
equals Wealth equals Power.
And what of the other head, that of Anglo-American
Establishment elitism? The constructive head still clings
tenaciously to the mistaken hypothesis that they will share in the
new world order with the Money Power.
We must address an endemic problem that aided the fall of
France in 1940 and even now threatens the United States. The very
forces that have controlled the “evil empire” since its capture by
them in 1917 are also the power behind the throne here in the
United States, as well as in Britain, Canada and Israel.
For the most part this powerful cabal is anonymous and its
collective face is more often than not hidden from the general
public, that is to say, kept out of the media. In order to do this
successfully, year in and year out, this cabal must also control all
facets of the media.

The Rothschild-controlled firms of Havas and Hachette

held absolute sway over newspaper publication, books, periodicals
and radio. They also controlled the government Office of
Communications, thereby assuring a monopoly, for it is a truism
that without government intervention and/or support there can be
no monopoly in anything.
The medium of control was generally the doling out of
advertising. To go up against the system by developing an
“independent” editorial policy, or to refuse to carry their gratis
“news” service, was to invite failure by having the highly lucrative
advertising sources cut off.
It is important to recognize the ties between and among the
Money Power, the politicians and the collective media. They are
the legs of a tripod supporting the State. It is a three-pronged back
scratcher, for the State can guarantee perpetuation of the
monopoly, and the Money Power, together with the media moguls,
can guarantee perpetuation of government policies, both foreign
and domestic, regardless of the party in power.
In the case of a democracy, such as we are purported to be,
and in the case of a republic which we once were – and as France
was before the onset of World War II – it becomes doubly
important to control the media, for by the manipulation of the
written and spoken word, one can win, if not the hearts and minds,
at least the votes of the citizens of any given country.
Of course, in a true totalitarian state, the governing force
doesn’t have to concern itself with influencing 51% of the voters;
and yet, there too, for obvious reasons of control and prevention of
uprisings, there must exist both media control and media
manipulation, as well as a curb or check-rein on the military.

ONE can look back through history and discover several instances
where the military forces of a country caved in and the country was
ultimately destroyed from within. This was especially true of
Rome where the military leaders lost their pride and honor,
succumbed to bribery, and left the defense of its empire to
Barbarians who had been allowed inside the gates.
We need only go back to 1917, when Russia was invaded
by alien hordes, albeit small in numbers. Prof. Quigley explained
this anomaly in his epic work Tragedy and Hope. Two passages
are especially pertinent, for it depicts what is currently happening
to our own military:
The Bolsheviks had no illusions about their position in Russia at
the end of 1917. They knew that they had formed an infinitesimal group
in that vast country and that they had been able to seize power because
they were a decisive and ruthless minority among a great mass of persons
who had been neutralized by propaganda…
In the course of this chaos and tragedy (famine 1921-22) the
Bolshevik regime was able to survive, to crush counterrevolutionary
movements, and to eliminate foreign interventionists. They were able to
do this because their opponents were divided, indecisive, or neutralized,
while they were vigorous, decisive, and completely ruthless. The chief
source of Bolshevik strength were to be found in the Red Army and the
secret police, the neutrality of the peasants, and the support of the
proletariat workers in industry and transportation. The secret police
(Cheka) was made up of fanatical and ruthless Communists who
systematically murdered all real or potential opponents. The Red Army
(under Trotsky) was recruited from the old czarist army but was rewarded
by high pay and favorable food rations. Although the economic system
collapsed almost completely, and the peasants refused to supply, or even
produce food for the city population, the Bolsheviks established a system
of food requisitions from the peasants and distributed this food by a
rationing system that rewarded their supporters…12


To bring into sharp focus the current spider-web of intrigue,
corruption and criminal betrayal of our country and its Constitution
at the highest pinnacle of government under the Clintonistas, let’s
skip back in time and place to Seattle, Washington, to the Olympic
Hotel, and to a special dinner arranged by the hotel owner for a
group of military officers from nearby Fort Lewis in the fall of
The honored guests from the East were John and Anna
Boettiger; she the only daughter of Franklin and Eleanor
Roosevelt, who had been previously married to Curtis Dall (who
would later found Liberty Lobby). Among the officers from the 3d
Infantry Division at Fort Lewis was a lieutenant colonel from the
15th Infantry Regiment, Dwight David Eisenhower.
During the evening, Lt Col Eisenhower monopolized the
attentions of Anna Roosevelt Boettiger. Observers, overhearing
much of the conversation, emphasized that Eisenhower constantly
sang the fulsome praise of her father, how wonderful he was, how
Early the next morning Anna was on the telephone to her father
in Washington. “I’ve found the man,” she said. And she proceeded to
tell the abnormally vain FDR what a hero-worshipper of his, and what a
genius, she had discovered in an army uniform. Within days – although
the incident is completely and understandably ignored in Ike’s own
account of this period in his ghostwritten autobiography, Crusade in
Europe – Lt Col Eisenhower was ordered to Washington for an interview
in the White House.13
And then the meteoric rise of the man through the ranks,
which led John Gunther to observe in his 1951 book, Eisenhower:
The Man & the Symbol, “There is no record quite like this (Ike’s
rise in rank) in the American Army.”14
It is there, for all to see in the first few pages of Crusade in
Europe. Back from the Washington interview, Ike was made chief
of staff of the 3d Infantry Division (Dec 1940), and in March 1941
he was promoted to colonel and became chief of staff of the entire

IX Army Corps. In June he was made chief of staff of the Third

United States Army with headquarters at Fort Sam Houston in San
Antonio (see photo, page **) where he oversaw army maneuvers at
a ranch south of Monterey, California. By September 1941, he
supervised the maneuvers at Camp Polk, Louisiana and was duly
promoted to brigadier general.15
General George Catlett Marshall, chief of staff of the
United States Army, pulled the new brigadier general into
Washington, DC on 14 Dec 1941, where, by 16 Feb 1942, he was
made assistant chief of staff of the War Plans Division. On 9 Mar
1942, he became the first head of the Operations Division of the
War Department, and was promoted to major general. On 11 Jun
1942, he was given command of the European Theatre of
Operations, and soon, in London, he fell into the habit of having
luncheon with Winston Churchill at 10 Downing Street every
Tuesday and dinner with Churchill at the latter’s home every
In July 1942, Ike was awarded the three stars of a lieutenant
general. Seven months later on 11 Feb 1943, less than two years
from the time he had still been a lieutenant colonel, Eisenhower
became a full general.17
Ten months later, although he had never seen a battle,
General Eisenhower was made commander in chief of all the
Allied forces in Western Europe.18
Ike was foreordained in that position as supreme
commander to assist the Soviets in their advance into Western
Europe, to the detriment of the United States, and to the further
glorification of one-world bolshevism as personified by FDR in the
United States and his bosom Bolshevik, Josef Stalin, in Soviet
Russia. These two traitors, jointly and severally, provided Ike with
his guidance for the sell-out of Western Europe to the so-called
Communists, who were, in fact, Zionist Bolsheviks.
From the past, one case can suffice, if only to set the pattern
for the ongoing sellout of our country and its Constitution by Bill
Clinton as commander-in-chief and his immediate subordinates. A

news clip taken from the Boston Herald (17 Jul 1970), is highly
WASHINGTON (UPI) - Allied military documents made public
last week show Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower alone made the decision that
allowed Soviet armies to reach Berlin first during World War II.
New light was thrown on the decision made in 1945 by the
release of Anglo-American chiefs of staff documents, which had been
classified top secret for 25 years.
Among the documents were cables from Eisenhower, the
supreme Allied commander in Europe, to Washington and to Soviet
Premier Josef Stalin which indicated Eisenhower felt Berlin was not an
important military target.
Stalin, in one exchange of documents, said he agreed with
Eisenhower that Berlin had lost its strategic importance. He said his high
command intended to allow only ‘secondary forces in the direction of
Berlin’. Allied forces were halted at the Elbe River and the Red Army
took Berlin May 2, 1945. The German high command surrendered six
days later. A similar decision was made with respect to Prague, the
capital of Czechoslovakia.
Eisenhower in both instances was fully backed by the US chiefs
of staff and former President Harry S Truman. British Prime Minister
Winston S. Churchill and his chief military advisers objected.
Nikita Khrushchev (Perlmutter), in purported memoirs published
earlier this month in the United States, quoted Stalin as praising
Eisenhower’s ‘decency, generosity and chivalry’ in the decision on Berlin.
Stalin said that ‘if it hadn’t been for Eisenhower, we wouldn’t have
succeeded in capturing Berlin.’
The Memoirs said that if Eisenhower had not held back as
Germany’s Western front crumbled, ‘the question of Germany might have
been decided differently and our position might have turned out a bit
Many observers have held since World War II that the
decision on Berlin had been a political one, possibly made months
before. The chiefs-of-staff documents appear to dispute this.
As early as 1951 when the leading journalist of Britain, if
not the world, Douglas Reed, was penning Far and Wide, he

It fell to Gen Eisenhower to obey orders to make the Anglo-

American advance in Europe, in 1944-45, conform with the Soviet
advance from the east, so that in the end Communism swallowed half of
Europe. The Anglo-American military commanders, left to pursue purely
military ends, could have averted that calamity by pressing right through
Germany, and beyond. Gen Eisenhower repeatedly mentions
recommendations by Mr. Churchill in some sense, but says he had to
oppose them because they were ‘political’, where he was tied to ‘military’
considerations. However, the supreme order to let the Red Armies get to
Berlin first was the greatest political one of these 1951 years, in my


Ike sent a message to the Combined Chiefs of Staff of
Britain and the US on 10 Mar 1944 recommending an entirely new
class of prisoners – Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs). At a press
conference in Paris on that date, Ike said, “If the Germans were
reasoning like normal human beings they would realize the whole
history of the United States and Great Britain is to be generous
towards a defeated enemy. We observe all the laws of the Geneva
Convention.” Soon after, he sent a letter to his wife, Mamie, in
which he said, “God, I hate the Germans! Why? Because the
German is a beast!”21
A year later, the International Red Cross, with over 100,000
tons of food stockpiled in Switzerland, sent two trainloads into the
American Zone of Germany. Under Ike’s orders, the military
governor, Gen Lucius Clay, sent the food back. Clay referred to
the Morgenthau Plan and its requirement for a “Carthaginian
Peace” for Germany. On 11 Apr 1945, on the eve of his death,
FDR told Morgenthau in Warm Springs, Georgia, “Henry, I am
with you 100%.” When Truman took over, he continued
Morgenthau’s “Carthaginian Peace” for Germany, which Ike, the
Supreme Commander, continued to implement.
On 17 Apr 1945, the American forces opened the enormous
Rheinberg prison camp, with no food or shelter whatsoever. The
Bingen camp, near Bad Kreitznach in the Rhineland, was holding
nearly 400,000 German POWs, with no shelter or medicine and

little food and water. Fatalities among the prisoners in these US

prison camps were 30%, according to a US medical survey.
Ike became military governor of the US Zone in Germany
in July 1945. He continued to turn back all relief teams from
Switzerland and the US. A French Army under Gen Rousseau
took over the Dietersheim camp near Mainz from the Americans
on 10 Jul 1945. He found 32,000 men and women of all ages in a
moribund state… “a vast mire peopled with living skeletons, male
and female, huddled under scraps of wet cardboard.”22
The International Red Cross, on 26 Jul 1945, proposed to
Ike that mail service be restored to German POWs. He rejected the
request, and on 4 Aug 1945, ordered that all remaining German
POWs be stripped of their rights under the Geneva Convention,
thus reducing them to DEF status. On 27 Aug 1945, British Gen
Littlejohn sent a memo to Ike informing him that 1,550,000
Germans who were supposedly receiving US Army rations were
receiving nothing. Ike ignored the memo, and the death toll
continued to climb.23
Ike returned to the States in December 1945, and the US
Army allowed the first relief shipments to enter the American
Ike states in Crusade in Europe that soon after he
completed the War College in 1928, he worked as special assistant
to the Assistant Secretary of War. The consummate politician
The years devoted to work of this kind opened up to me almost a
new world. During that time I met and worked with many people whose
opinions I respected highly, in both military and civil life. Among these
an outstanding figure was Mr. Bernard Baruch, for whom my admiration
was and is profound. I still believe that if Mr. Baruch’s recommendations
for universal price fixing and his organizational plans had been
completely and promptly adopted in December 1941 this country would
have saved billions in money – possibly much in time and therefore in

So we see this political pattern which would later emerge in

1948 when “extreme left-wingers” were plugging Ike for the
Democratic nomination for president. His chief backer, Leonard
Finder, then decided on a strategy to make Ike the Republican
candidate. His agent for this “change” was a Socialist New
Yorker, one Stuart Sheftel. Ike sent a letter to Finder (dated 22 Jan
1948), stating that he was not a candidate.25
Among the faithful pushing Ike for the Democratic
candidate in 1948 were Bernard Baruch, Adlai Stevenson, James
Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., Helen Gahagan Douglas,
David Dubinsky (who had raised American money to help the
Bolsheviks in the Spanish civil war), Eleanor Roosevelt, Drew
Pearson and Sidney Hillman.26
Now, shift the scene to 1952 and look closely at those
(besides Finder) who were pushing Ike for the Republican
nomination: Bernard Baruch, Oscar Hammerstein, Moss Hart,
Richard Rodgers, Arthur Shwartz, Quintin Reynolds, Arthur Loew,
William Zeckendorf, Max Kriendler, Jacob Potofsky, Humphrey
Bogart, Lauren Bacall and Michael Straight.27
The belabored point in this instance is that all of Ike’s
backers, whether “Democrats” or “Republicans,” were known
Bolsheviks and Bolshevik sympathizers who saw clearly (as FDR
had seen early on) that Dwight David Eisenhower was one of their
own. He would do their bidding. They were not disappointed.
To comprehend the extent of this soldier’s betrayal of the
military and his country fully, one must study his ghost-written
autobiography, Crusade in Europe, and compare it to the factual
work by Robert Welch, The Politician, for – give the man credit –
Eisenhower, while not much of a soldier, was a consummate
Question: How many of today’s top military brass have
sold out the Constitution and the country?

TO set the stage for the ongoing vote fraud being perpetrated here
in the United States, we must journey back to the beginning of this
century. President McKinley was assassinated by an Eastern
European émigré in 1901, which placed the popular Anglophile
and descendant of Sephardic Jews from Holland, Theodore
Roosevelt, in the highest office. He was followed by a reasonable
Republican, William Howard Taft, who would run for a second
term in 1912. It was pre-ordained that he would lose.
A gathering of key agents in 1910, backed by their
international financial controllers, chose the next president, who
would reign over the United States for eight years and serve as
their puppet to assure our entry into the planned Great War.
The chief president-maker was Edward Mandell House
(Huis), aged fifty. He had attended schools in England, where
prominent members of the Fabian Society captivated him. A man
of great personal wealth, his family fortune was made during the
War Between the States. His father, T. W. Huis, was the
confidential American agent of the Rothschilds.
One of his leading henchmen was Rabbi Stephen Wise
(born in Budapest, as were Herzl and Nordau), who in 1910 told a
New Jersey audience:
On Tuesday, Mr Woodrow Wilson will be elected governor; he
will not complete his term as governor; in November 1912 he will be
elected President of the United States; he will be inaugurated for the
second time as President.28
Bear in mind that, at this time, neither House nor Wise had
ever met Wilson. As House stated: “I turned to Woodrow
Wilson…as being the only man…who in every way measured up
to the office.…”
Did he mean that Wilson was also the best man for the
office? House said:

The trouble with getting a candidate for president is that the man
that is best fitted for the place cannot be nominated and, if nominated
could not be elected. The People seldom take the best man fitted for the
job; therefore it is necessary to work for the best man who can be
nominated and elected, and just now Wilson seems to be that man.29
Without rehashing the role of Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull
Moose Party in assuring Wilson’s election in 1912, let’s go to
House’s 1912 novel Philip Dru: Administrator (a word right out of
the Protocols.… The Administrators whom we shall choose…).
The chapter “The Making of the President,” which, as we build up
to another farcical presidential election, is important enough to
read again.
Douglas Reed, in his Controversy of Zion: (1956) describes
the technique:
The secret of Mr. House’s hold over the Democratic Party lay in
the strategy which he had devised for winning elections. The Democratic
party had been out of office for nearly fifty unbroken years and he had
devised a method which made victory almost a mathematical certainty.
The Democratic party was in fact to owe its [victory in] 1916, as well as
President Roosevelt’s and President Truman’s victories in 1932, 1936,
1940, 1944 and 1948 to the application of Mr. House’s plan.
In this electoral plan, which in its field perhaps deserves the
name of genius, lies Mr. House’s enduring effect on the life of America;
his political ideas were never clearly formed and were frequently changed
so that he forged an instrument whereby the ideas of others were put into
effect; the instrument itself was brilliantly designed.
In essence, it was a plan to gain the vote of the “foreign born,”
the new immigrants solidly for the Democratic Party by making appeal to
their racial feelings and especially emotional reflexes. It was worked out
in great detail and was the product of a master hand in this particular
brand of political science.30
The House strategy was, as we today know so well, to
concentrate its efforts on the “swing vote,” the minority of
undecided, uncommitted voters.
Is this diabolical electoral plan part of a gigantic
conspiracy? FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, in The Elks magazine,
August 1956, states:

Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a

conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind
simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced
into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could
espouse a philosophy that must ultimately destroy all that is good and


The chief manipulator of the 1952 election process was
Bernard Baruch. Truly to understand Baruch, the “Elder
Statesman,” and what his intentions and motivations were, one
must consider his relationships with other “elders,” particularly
after World War II. He was a man who understood full well not
only the first and second secrets of the Protocols, but the need to
form a “super government” and, of course, always the “terrible
power of the purse.”
Oscillating between running Ike as a Democrat or
Republican, his cohorts manipulated the electoral process in 1952
to give us a “false” Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, over
Republican Bob Taft.
Thus it was that in 1952 Dwight David Eisenhower, an
avowed “internationalist,” was chosen over Taft as the standard-
bearer for the GOP in that fateful election.
He was programmed to win, just as Jimmy Carter, George
Bush and Bill Clinton were foreordained to win in their
elections…and by the same group, namely, the Zionist masters.
And just as Clinton was spotted early on by his future handlers
(and shipped to Oxford for brainwashing in “social” skills), so was
the young Eisenhower spotted in an academic environment.
It was Bernard Baruch who spotted Eisenhower, marking
him for future “greatness.” Ike was a student of the Army War
College at Fort McNair in 1928. Baruch had been granted the
“honor,” as an “elder statesman,” of being a guest lecturer at this
most prestigious military school. Apparently the young
Eisenhower asked the right questions, especially of Baruch.

Later this same Dwight David Eisenhower – who had never

seen a day of combat – rose to five-star rank. After the war and
before he became president, he spoke to a gathered group of
American Legionnaires, telling them among other things that for a
quarter century he “had the privilege of sitting at Bernard Baruch’s
feet and listening to his words.”32
A more apt word would be “groveling.” In GI parlance, we
call this ass kissing. It works…sometimes. It got Ike the
presidency of the United States.
One of Baruch’s comrades was the notorious Ben Hecht,
who gave us a verbal view of the elder statesman:
One day the door of my room opened and a tall, white-haired
man entered. It was Bernard Baruch, my first Jewish social visitor. He sat
down, observed me for a moment and then spoke. ‘I am on your side,’
said Baruch, ‘The only way the Jews will ever get anything is by fighting
for it. I’d like you to think of me as one of your Jewish fighters in the tall
grass with a long gun. I’ve always done my best work that way, out of
Douglas Reed, in his suppressed opus, The Controversy of
Zion, informs us that Hecht was one of the most extreme
chauvinists in the US. He openly endorsed violence:
One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the crucifixion
of Christ. Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to
bungle. If I'd had charge of executing Christ I'd have handled it
differently. You see, what I would have done was have him shipped to
Rome and fed to the lions. They never could have made a saviour out of
Baruch attempted to portray himself as a great public-
spirited citizen and a patriotic American, as well as a generous
philanthropist, when his life was devoted to personal
aggrandizement and advancement of the Zionist conspiracy for
worldwide Talmudic despotism which would be brought about by
controlling a “supergovernment.” Baruch, and others of his select
circle of power, called this yet-to-be-formed colossus The United
Nations as early as 1940.

According to Reed, Baruch submitted a Plan for control of

atomic weapons to the UN AEC (14 Jun 1946):
He spoke with the voice of the Levites’ Jehovah, offering
“blessings or cursings,” alluded to the atom bomb as the “absolute
weapon,” and used the familiar argument of false prophets, namely, that if
his advice were followed “peace” would ensue and if it were ignored all
would be “destroyed.” This threat of nuclear annihilation then became
the centerpiece for what was dubbed the “Cold War” which is Talmudic
in its concept of eternal revenge.34
Let’s look closely at his “promise” and his “threat,” as
stated in Baruch’s Plan, which is diabolical in its cunning.
Remember that the man speaking these words “advised” (say,
controlled) six presidents, starting with Woodrow Wilson:
We must elect world peace or world destruction…we must
provide immediate, swift and sure punishment of those who violate the
agreements that are reached by the nations. Penalization is essential if
peace is to be more than a feverish interlude between wars.… The United
Nations can prescribe individual responsibility and punishment on the
principles applied at Nuremberg by the USSR, the UK, France and the US
– a formula certain to benefit the world’s future… We represent the
peoples of the world… The peoples of these democracies gathered here
are not afraid of internationalism that protects; they are unwilling to be
fobbed off by mouthings about narrow sovereignty, which is today’s
phrase for yesterday’s isolation.35
Those two phrases, “internationalism that protects” and
“yesterday’s isolation,” would have a profound effect on the
election process in 1952 and guarantee that Baruch’s (Zionism’s)
man would become President.
Baruch proposed that “an Authority” with a monopoly of
atomic energy be set up, which should be “free from all check in its
punitive use of atomic energy against any party deemed by it to be
deserving of punishment.”
In this one profound statement, we catch a glimpse of the
strivings of 3,000 years on the part of a “chosen people” to rule the
earth by sheer brute force and terror, by promising “peace,” but
threatening “destruction.”
And now possessing the “absolute weapon.”


Here are excerpts from the 1952 book, A Foreign Policy for
Americans, by another elder statesman, Robert A. Taft.
The result of the Administration policy (Democratic, 1933-52)
has been to build up the strength of Soviet Russia so that it is in fact a
threat to the security of the United States.… Russia is far more a threat to
the security of the United States than Hitler ever was.…
Fundamentally I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign
policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of America… I feel
that the last two presidents have put all kinds of political and policy
considerations ahead of their interest in liberty and peace…
It seems to me that the sending of troops without authorization of
Congress to a country under attack, as was done in Korea, is clearly
prohibited.… The European army project, however, goes further… It
involves the sending of troops to an international army similar to that
which was contemplated under the United Nations charter… I was never
satisfied with the United Nations Charter…it is not based on an
underlying law and an administration of justice under that law…
I see no choice except to develop our own military policy and
our own policy of alliances without substantial regard to the non-existent
power of the United Nations to prevent aggression.…
The other form of international organization which is being
urged strenuously upon the people of the United States, namely, a world
state with an international legislature to make the laws and an
international executive to direct the army of the organization…appears to
me, at least in this century, to be fantastic, dangerous and impractical…
Any international organization which is worth the paper it is
written on must be based on retaining the sovereignty of all states. Peace
must be sought, not by destroying and consolidating nations, but by
developing a rule of law in the relations between nations…36
Compare the words of these two elder statesmen, Bernard
Baruch and Robert Taft, as they should give you a better insight as
to how we ended up with a Bill Clinton as president in 1993 and
again in 1997. Coupled with that is the fact that by not choosing
Bob Taft in 1952 as the Republican candidate, we, as a nation, lost
our last chance to halt the inexorable march to a one-world super


Dwight David Eisenhower was born 14 Oct 1890, in
Denison, Texas, the son of Jacob David Eisenhower and Ida
Stover. Ida named her son after the American evangelist, Dwight
Shortly after his nomination in 1952, Eisenhower told
Maxwell Abbell, president of the United Synagogue of America,
“the Jewish people could not have a better friend than me [sic]… I
grew up believing that Jews were the chosen people and that they
gave us the high ethical and moral principles of our civilization…
my mother reared us boys in the Old Testament.”37
Reed points out in Controversy of Zion that all Jewish
papers carried the quote. Reed also reveals that in the 1952
election campaign, “the only passage of any vital meaning in the
‘foreign policy programmes’ adopted by the two parties related, in
each case, to Israel.”
The Republican Party programme, on which Eisenhower was
unanimously elected candidate, said: ‘We regard the preservation of Israel
as an important tenet of American foreign policy. We are determined that
the integrity of an independent Jewish state shall be maintained. We shall
support the independence of Israel against armed aggression.’
The Democratic Party programme said: ‘The Democratic Party
will act to redress the dangerous imbalance of arms in the area created by
the shipment of Communist arms to Egypt, by selling or supplying
defensive weapons to Israel, and will take such steps, including security
guarantees, as may be required to deter aggression and war in the area’. 38
Insofar as the Zionist State is concerned, Reed stressed:
In those years the little state misnamed ‘Israel’ proved to be
something unique in history. It was governed, as it was devised, set up
and largely peopled, by non-Semitic Jews from Russia, of the Chazar
breed. Founded on a tribal tradition of antiquity, with which these
peoples could have no conceivable tie of blood, it developed a savage
chauvinism based on the literal application of the Law of the Levites in
ancient Judah. Tiny, it had no true life of its own and from the start lived
only by the wealth and weapons its powerful supporters in the great
Western countries could extort from these. During these years it outdid
the most bellicose warlords of history in warlike words and deeds. Ruled

by men of the same stock as those who wielded the terror in Poland and
Hungary, it daily threatened the seven neighboring Semitic peoples with
the destruction and enslavement prescribed for them in Deuteronomy of
the Levites.39
According to author Gregory Douglas, in Gestapo Chief,
Vol. II, Ike’s brother Milton Eisenhower, while maintaining a high
position in the Department of Agriculture was listed as a Soviet
Here we are in the new millennium, and the relationships of
our leading politicos – regardless of party affiliation – vis a vis the
Zionist mini-state have not deviated an iota since the founding of
“Israel” in 1948. Can this obsequious groveling in front of the
altar of Mammon be renounced as treason, or have we in fact sold
our birthright for a mess of pottage?
Let’s journey back in time to a relatively small signpost
flagging our direction on the rough roadway to destruction of our
national sovereignty, of our Constitution, and of our very way of
life. The man who erected the signpost was a soldier in that he
looked like a soldier, dressed like a soldier and occasionally – but
not that often – acted like a soldier, Dwight David Eisenhower. He
was really not a soldier; he was a politician and an opportunist of
the first magnitude. His fellow soldiers often referred to him as
Dwight David Kerensky, denoting not only his Jewish family
lineage, originally from Sweden, but especially his conduct in high
office when chosen by the very few to wear the ermine mantle. The
all-important question becomes: are top military commanders also
betraying their country to international Bolshevism under the
crooked and traitorous Clinton administration in 1999?
Following the Suez debacle, on 5 Jan 1957, President
Eisenhower asked Congress for standing authority to use the armed
forces of the United States against “overt armed aggression from
any nation controlled by international communism in the Middle

What did Ike’s handlers have in mind when they penned

these words for their “premier-dictator”? Bear in mind that the
man himself wrote very little in his lifetime… not even a word of
Crusade in Europe, which was written in its entirety by a known
communist and subversive, Joseph Fels Barnes.41
Before and after the attack on Egypt by the combine of
Israel, France and Britain, the international press accused one Arab
nation after another of being “controlled” by international
communism. Ike’s request to Congress, under the guise of
extirpating communism, was actually an attack not on communism
but on the Arabs.
One example will suffice about the lock step of the
complicit media picking up the drumbeat of a “communist-
controlled” enemy in the Middle East, which ultimately came to
mean the entire Muslim world. The New York Times, which
ostensibly prints all the news fit to print, in its 2 Dec 1956 issue,
published photos of “Russian tanks captured by the Israelis” during
the attack on Egypt. A military officer’s objection led the paper to
admit that the tanks were in fact American.42
The curious twist under Ike’s request centered on the fact
that Egypt was widely declared by the international media to be the
“aggressor” in the October 1956 attack on itself. The aggressor in
the Middle East, then and now, was and is the tiny theocratic state
of Israel. Had Ike meant those words of Jan 1957, and had he
spoken them but six months earlier, it would have been incumbent
on the American forces, on Egyptian request, to repel the Israeli
Another curious twist emerged following the publication of
Moshe Sharett’s personal diary in 1979. As Livia Rokach writes in
Israel’s Sacred Terrorism:
On October 1, 1955, the US Government, through the CIA, gave
Israel the “green light” to attack Egypt. The energies of Israel’s security
establishment became wholly absorbed by the preparations for the war
which would take place exactly one year later.43

Perhaps the most telling of Sharett’s personal diary entries,

as reflected in Rokach’s work, deals with the concerted efforts on
the part of the Israeli “hard-liners” to use force, violence and sheer
terror to drive out all of the Palestinians and then destroy Egypt as
a military force in contention with Israel for Middle East
The basic motivation was also clearly stated.… The use of force
was ‘the only way’ for Israel to become the hegemonic power in the
region, possibly in alliance with the West. Nasser had to be eliminated,
not because his regime constituted a danger for Israel, but because an
alliance between the West [and Nasser] would inevitably lead to a peace
agreement, which in turn would cause the Zionist state to be revitalized as
just one of the region’s national societies.44
Sharett’s diary entries in March 1955 make frequent
reference to Ben-Gurion, Dayan and Lavon pressing to present
Egypt with an ultimatum: either it evacuates all the Palestinian
refugees from Gaza and disperses them inside Egypt, or else.…
It is easy to imagine the outrage and hate and bitterness and the
desire for revenge that will animate them (the Palestinians)…and we still
have 100,000 of them in the Strip, and it is easy to imagine what means
we shall resort to in order to repress them and what wave of hatred we
will create again and what kind of headlines we shall receive in the
international press.45
What Sharett feared most was Western reaction. On 14
Apr 1955, he wrote:
Reports by US embassies in Arab capitals, studied in
Washington, have produced in the State Department the conviction that
an Israeli plan of retaliation, to be realized according to a pre-fixed
timetable, exists, and that the goal is that of a steady escalation of the
tension in the area in order to bring about a war.46
Ben-Gurion made a public speech (8 Aug 1955) in which
he blasted Prime Minister Sharett’s “timidity,” asserting that his
policy was aimed only at pleasing the gentiles. At that time, the
West had refused to provide Egypt with defensive weapons and
John Foster Dulles’ commitment to help Egypt in the construction
of the Aswan Dam had faded into thin air, while Israel executed a

devastating attack on Gaza and continued to prepare for all-out

“These factors contributed to extinguishing Cairo’s last
illusions. By the end of September, Egypt signed an arms deal
with Czechoslovakia intended to secure its survival and self-
defense.” (Rokach.) 47 These activities led to the following entry in
Sharatt’s diary, dated 1 Oct 1955:
Teddy [Kollek] brought in a classified cable from Washington.
Our “partner” named [in code] ‘Ben’ [Kermit Roosevelt of the
CIA]…describes the terrible confusion prevailing in the State department
under the shock of the Nasser-Czech, i.e., ‘Russian’ deal.… If, when the
Soviet arms arrive, you will hit Egypt – no one will protest.” (Kermit
Roosevelt’s words in the cable)48
To heighten Sharett’s understanding of US government
backing for the coming attack on Egypt, he makes the following
entries on 3 October:
“If they really get MiGs [declared Ben-Gurion]… I will support
their bombing! We can do it!” I understood that he read the cable from
Washington. The wild seed has fallen on fertile ground.…
Isser [Harel, Shin Bet chief] likewise concludes that the US is
hinting to us that as far as they are concerned, we have a free hand and
God bless us if we act audaciously.… Now…the US is interested in
toppling Nasser’s regime…but it does not dare at the moment to use the
methods it adopted to topple the leftist government of Jacobo Arbenz in
Guatemala [1954] and of Mossadegh in Iran [1953].… It prefers its work
to be done by Israel.49
Thus, we are afforded a glimpse of the background leading
up to Ike’s supposed outrage regarding the attack on Egypt and the
Suez Canal the following year. Here is Rokach’s studied view:
Precisely one year later Dayan’s troops occupied the Gaza Strip,
Sinai, and the Straits of Tiran, and were arrayed along the shore of the
Suez Canal to watch the spectacular French and British aerial
bombardments of Ismailia and Suez, accompanied by the rapid landing of
troops in the Canal Zone. Six months before, as a result of a personal
decision by Ben-Gurion, Sharett had been eliminated from the
government. The premiership had been resumed by the Old Man (Ben-
Gurion) in November 1955, one month after the US ‘green light’ for an
Israeli invasion of Egypt…

At the moment of the Suez offensive the US feigned surprise,

and even indignation. But it made a clear distinction between England
and France – the beaten rivals in the inter-imperialist struggle for
influence in the Middle East – and Israel… With the CIA authorization in
its pocket, Israel was granted the mitigating circumstances of ‘security
needs’ in world opinion’s judgment on that criminal war.”50


Was this particular issue as regards the Middle East but an
aberration on the part of our Republican President, D. D.
Eisenhower? No indeed! In 1963, Robert Welch published a book
about Ike, called The Politician. He quotes Daniel Webster:
There is nothing so powerful as truth, and often nothing so
In a telling chapter, “The Word is Treason,” Welch details
the absolute and documented truth that Eisenhower was a traitor
for, among other reasons, his gag order preventing the House Un-
American Activities Committee from revealing Communists in
government. This gag order brought about unrestricted
immigration, particularly of “refugees” from Eastern Europe.
Welch quotes Madame Roland: “Humanitarianism – what treason
is committed in thy name!”52
This is the same Ike who ordered our troops in Europe to
drive back into the arms of his Communist colleagues (the Soviets)
all – I repeat, all – of the people who had fled the Communist
menace to the “safety” of the United States forces in Germany
(1945). This was Ike’s infamous “Keel Haul” directive, which was
mass murder on a grand scale.
You can ask, what in God’s name was the purpose of his
criminal acts? For now, a quote from Welch will suffice:
For six years Eisenhower and his associates have carried on a
persistent and energetic campaign to break down the independent
sovereignty of the United States, and to submerge that sovereignty under
international agreements and the control of international agencies.
The open boasts of the United Nations crowd…that there is a
day-to-day de facto surrender of American sovereignty to the UN are well
justified. And Eisenhower’s support of this transfer of sovereignty by

installments is continuous. He has emphasized over and over, for

instance, that our troops are to be used, in implementation of the
Eisenhower Doctrine, under the control of the United Nations Security
Council. 53
Thus began the current and ongoing utter destruction of
Israel’s enemies in the Middle East on the part of the armed forces
of the United States in their role as the force majeure of the United
Nations Security Council, now embodied in a sub-UN group
(NATO) which has become the world’s police force. Over the
ensuing years, we see how Ike’s words have been expanded
outward to include the use of armed forces of the United States
against any nation for any reason. We do not need to recite the
litany of our violations of the sovereignty of many once-
independent countries about the world. In fact, today we, the
United States, as the muscle behind the United Nations, have
combat troops in over one hundred nations about the world.
His name is Wesley Kanne Clark; he is a cardboard cutout
of Dwight David Eisenhower, and was, until relieved in July 1999
and replaced by Gen Joseph Ralston, the supreme commander of
NATO forces. Gen Eisenhower was the first commander of that
organization, which was set up after WW II with but one mission –
to defend Western Europe against the further encroachment of
Soviet Bolshevism. We saw earlier how FDR, in 1940, selected
Ike, then a lieutenant colonel, for rapid advancement to the
ultimate position of Supreme Allied Commander in Europe
With a little help from the New York Times (3 May 1999),
we see that it is déjà vu all over again. It was President Bill
Clinton who spotted Wesley Clark early on, arranged for his rapid
promotion to 4-star general, and placed him in the position of the
commander of NATO’s “new and improved” military operations,
which are now built on the old military axiom that “the best
defense is a good offense.”

The banner over the Clark story in the New York Times
stated: “His Family’s Refugee Past is Said to Inspire NATO’s
Commander.” Here is the lead:
The American general who is leading NATO’s military
operation…discovered as an adult that he is the grandson of a Russian
Jew who fled his country to escape the pogroms there a century ago. Gen
Wesley Kanne Clark was raised as a Protestant in Little Rock, where he
was brought up by his mother and step-father, Victor Clark. He was
ignorant of his ancestry, which disappeared from his life with the death of
his father, Benjamin Jacob Kanne, when Wesley was five years old. He
learned of his ethnic background when he was in his 20’s and embraced
the discovery, according to several family members.…54
The New York Times article likened the forced exodus of
Albanians from Kosovo to the “expulsion of Jews from Russia and
the Nazi mass murder of Jews during the Holocaust in Europe.”
(Of course, overlooking the forced exodus of Palestinians from
Israel.) Some of Clark’s relatives say that the general was inspired
by the story of his grandfather’s persecution and escape from his
native land, and that his determination to defeat Milosevic is fed in
part by his empathy for the victims of Serbian ethnic purges.
The article stated that the general’s grandfather, Jacob
Nemerovsky, fled Russia in the late 1890s in fear for his life, and
found safety in Switzerland where he obtained a false passport
under the name of “Kanne,” which he used to immigrate to the
United States.55
So much for a backgrounder on the NATO commander, but
who is he, really? Here is a telling lead from another source:
“WASHINGTON - May 5 - The real Gen Clark is a vain,
pompous, brown-noser, say those who have served with him in the
armed forces,” according to a report by Counterpunch, a
Washington-based newsletter.56
“Bill Clinton’s pal from Little Rock, Arkansas – a Rhodes
scholar who, like Clinton, also went to Oxford – is a typical
‘political general’ whose promotions came only because of his
White House pull,” according to the article. He is facing the

gloomy prospect of becoming the fall guy for NATO’s disastrous

failure to bring the Serbs to heel.
“Who is responsible for an air offensive that is building
anti-American anger across Europe without breaking the Serbian
regime’s will?” asks Robert Novak, a nationally syndicated
columnist (5 May 1999). He answers his own question. “The
blame rests heavily on Gen Wesley K. Clark, the NATO supreme
After pointing out that Clark’s belligerency toward Serb
civilians has stunned even his defenders in the national security
establishment, Novak concludes: “The president and the general
are collaborators in a failed strategy whose consequences cast a
long shadow, even if soon terminated by negotiation.”
To understand the reasons for such failures, one must look
at the general’s past, and the way he rose to power. “Clark is a
perfect model of a 1990s political 4-star general,” Novak observes.
“Clark’s rapid promotions after Dayton (the agreement which
ended the war in Bosnia) – winning his fourth star to head the
Panama-based Southern Command, and then the jewel of
SACEUR – were both opposed by the Pentagon brass. But Clark’s
fellow Arkansan in the White House named him anyway.”58
His NATO subordinates call him, not with affection, “the
Supreme Being.” Recognizing the fortunes of war and the adroit
maneuvering of political generals, perhaps Wesley Kanne Clark
will, like Dwight David Eisenhower, rise to the pinnacle of power
and become both president and commander-in-chief. A major war
– call it World War III – could cause it to happen. Does Bill
Clinton want it? Does Wesley Clark want it? Most important: Do
their fearful masters want it? If the answer to these questions is
yes, then the subsequent question must be, Why?
What with NATO’s unprovoked attack on the sovereign
nation of Serbia, the only nation whose sovereignty is sacrosanct
seems to be Israel. This “nation within nations” has striven ever
since its benign captivity in ancient Babylon to take over the world
and govern it in absolute despotism.

How did such a situation evolve? The history is long and

sordid; however, by examining a part of it, namely, the takeover of
Russia by a “minority,” who referred to themselves as Bolsheviks
(the majority), we will be able to comprehend how we ourselves –
citizens of the once-Republic of the United States of America –
were also bolshevized, that is, enslaved.
Can we somehow reverse this bolshevization, or is it, in
fact, too late? If there is still a chance that we can regain our
liberty, what must we do to restore our Republic and its
(Enslavement of a Nation)

The objective of strategic deception is to paint a false picture of

the entire political climate in which the Soviet Union operates among
both friend and foe alike – disguising their objectives and ultimate
ambitions…. [It] succeeds not so much because of the ability of the
Soviet propaganda and agents of influence to deceive us, but because
of our tendencies to deceive ourselves.
Dr John Lenczowski, Soviet Strategic Deception, 1987


I N an article in The Atlantic Monthly (Nov 1945), “Einstein on

the Atomic Bomb,” Time Magazine’s anointed man of the
century, Albert Einstein speaks of the “minority” then ruling in the
Soviet Union, to wit:
While it is true that in the Soviet Union the minority rules, I do
not consider the internal conditions there are of themselves a threat to
world peace. One must bear in mind that the people in Russia did not
have a long political education and changes to improve Russian
conditions had to be carried through by a minority for the reason that
there was no majority capable of doing it.1
Just who are the Barbarians, that “minority” who ruled in
the Soviet Union from 1917 until the present millennium? What
“changes to improve Russian conditions” were actually carried
through by these Barbarians whom Einstein laureled?
The pattern of confusion, chaos and conquest created in
Russia from 1917 onwards was identical to that of the War
Between the States (1861-65) and of other major revolutions, such
as the English civil war (1642-48) under Oliver Cromwell,

culminating in the beheading of Charles I in 1649; and the French

Revolution (1789-94), resulting in the beheading of Louis XVI in
1793. Each of these major historic events was fomented by
“outside forces.” Each had its roots in Talmudic terrorism and
revenge. This pattern is prevalent here in the United States today,
for in each instance aliens had to inveigle their way inside the gates
in order to poison the well of public opinion while simultaneously
taking over the reins of finance and government.
What was the nature of these crimes committed under the
Bolsheviks and, most important, just who were those criminals?
We can turn briefly to the recent writings of an erudite
American scholar who revealed much about both: Russia Under
the Bolshevik Regime by Richard Pipes. Pipes, a noted Harvard
professor, published his work in 1995. He served as Director, East
Europe and Soviet Affairs for the National Security Council under
President Reagan (1981-82). Suffice it to say, the man knows his
Pipes explain that Jews undeniably played in the Bolshevik
Party a role disproportionate to their share of the population; “the
number of Jews active in Communism in Russia and abroad was
The Bolshevik Party was organized as a conspiratorial
group for the specific purpose of seizing power and making a
revolution from above, first in Russia and then in the rest of the
world. It was the prototype for all subsequent totalitarian
organizations, especially Fascism and National Socialism (the
Nazis). While they were virtual carbon copies of the Soviet police
state, both were much more benevolent, meaning that they
murdered and imprisoned far fewer of their people.
The Russian Revolution, the murder of Czar Nicholas II
and his family, and the civil war that followed absolutely
devastated that country. In many ways it followed what the
Northern forces did to the South in our own fratricidal conflict. In

both instances alien “invaders” brought chaos and conflict, death

and destruction to the native inhabitants.
In the 13th century, Russia had been caught in the grip of
the Mongol hordes. Now, it was another invasion of the
“Khazarians” – descendants of the warlike Turko-Asiatics who had
converted to Judaism in the eighth century – who committed a
series of unspeakable atrocities, slaughtering millions by a frightful
combination of bloody combat, fierce and unending cold, hunger
and starvation.
As that great British journalist and author of the long
suppressed, The Last Days of the Romanovs, Robert Wilton, would
report from Moscow in 1918, it was alien Jews who had
Russianized their names and now headed the Red Army, the
dreaded Cheka secret police and the Soviet, who had masterminded
the diabolical takeover. Their continuing aim throughout this
century – and especially is it true today as we near the millennium
– is to bring about “revolutionary universalism.”3
Wilton knew his Bolsheviks.
So did Winston Churchill. In a lengthy article, “Zionism
versus Bolshevism,” in the London Sunday Herald (8 Feb 1920),
he remarked:
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of
Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these
international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very
great one; it probably outweighs all others.4
A top official in the British foreign office, Sir Eyre Crowe,
commenting on pogroms carried out in Russia in 1919, wrote:
What may appear to Mr Weizmann (Chaim Weizmann, head of
international Zionism) to be outrages against Jews, may be – in the eyes
of the Russians – retaliation against the horrors committed by the
Bolsheviks who are all organized and directed by the Jews.5
What we know as the Bolshevik Party was the creation of
Lenin; both Mussolini and Hitler merely copied the model. The
Party, whether called Bolshevist or Communist or National
Socialist or Fascist, was the instrument used to take over the state

as Lenin had done earlier. To enforce total compliance with their

dictates, each of the three developed an all-pervasive secret police.
These are the recognizable marks of a totalitarian regime.
US Presidents and their handlers are today using the
identical tactics to destroy the sovereignty of the United States. All
that is lacking at the moment is a major catastrophe, such as the
collapse of the currency, and/or a controlled disintegration of both
the economy and the culture. Revolution, civil war and mass
starvation will surely follow, as the identical instigators of the
Russian Revolution are now in charge here in the United States and
are set to implement their final step in “revolutionary
There was a time when Winston Churchill was very candid
about the dangers of Bolshevism, as he called Communism. The
unalterable fact is that he sold out to them prior to 1939. As we
will discover in Chapter 4, our four-term President FDR, had sold
out much earlier. Together and separately, they sold out both
Britain and the United States to international Bolshevism.
Little known revelations of about Roosevelt, Churchill and
a clandestine group of Jewish European financiers, known as the
Focus Group, can be found in David Irving’s historic book
Churchill’s War. Irving chronicled that European banking interests
approached Churchill, paid off his estate mortgage, and arranged
conferences with Roosevelt for the purpose of jarring the US as an
ally of England into waging a war with Germany. This was to be
accomplished via the “back door.” Japan, Italy and Germany were
joined as the axis allies in a treaty where in the event one country
was attacked, the others would come to its defense. Subsequent to
the conferences, President Roosevelt shifted the US naval fleet into
the South Pacific and began the grueling embargo of strategic
materials to Japan, including scrap iron and oil. Just as German U-
boats sunk the Lusitania, to commence World War I, Roosevelt
employed this strategem to entice Japan into sinking a US naval

vessel by tightening the embargo noose. Japan refrained from

biting the bait. In desparation, the bulk of the Pacific naval fleet
was stationed at Pearl Harbor – an inviting target for Japanese
Zeros to strike. For further research, one should read Professor
Tansill’s book The Pacific Back Road to the War and The Actual
Road to Pearl Harbor by George Morgenstern.
Continuing: Churchill, who took over the War Office in
1919, had an anti-Communist stance, rather than anti-Russian. He
regarded Communism as “unadulterated evil, a satanic force”; he
referred to Bolsheviks as “animals” and “butchers.” He stated
September 15, 1919:
It is a delusion to suppose that all this year we have been fighting
the battles of the anti-Bolshevik Russians. On the contrary, they have
been fighting ours and this truth will become painfully apparent from the
moment that they are exterminated and the Bolshevik armies are supreme
over the whole vast territories of the Russian Empire.6
Here are other “Winnie” quotes, circa 1920:
It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of
the anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people and that
this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme
manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.…
It (the worldwide Bolshevik takeover) played, as a modern
writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable
part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring
of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the
great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by
the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters
of that enormous empire.7
The British Government churned out a white paper in 1919
called “Russia No.1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism.” It
included a statement made by the Netherlands minister at St.
Petersburg, M. Oudendyke, which was sent to former Prime
Minister, Arthur Balfour in London in 1918:
The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the
attention of the British and all other governments to the fact that, if an end
is not put to Bolshevism at once, the civilization of the whole world will

be threatened.… I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism

is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war
which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in
the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over
Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews, who
have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends
the existing order of things. The only manner in which this danger can be
averted would be collective action on the part of all the Powers. I would
beg that this Report be telegraphed as soon as possible in cipher in full to
the British Foreign Office in view of its importance.8
At the same time, the US ambassador in Moscow, David R.
Francis, reported back to Washington: “The Bolshevik leaders
here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned
exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are
internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social
Time to recall the famous – or infamous – words of David
Ben-Gurion spoken as he took over the newly created state of
Israel in 1948: “I am in favor of Bolshevism.”
Robert Wilton, correspondent for the London Times, was
stationed in Moscow at that time and was witness to the bloody
revolution. He provided what was to become the official report;
the Official Bolshevik Lists. Wilton included the names of every
individual involved. Subsequently, many of them changed or
Russianized their names to conceal their true identity. The report
consisted of the following ethnic makeup:
Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party: 9 Jews, 3 Russians;
Central Committee of the Executive Commission: 42 Jews, 19 Russians,
Letts, Georgians and others; Council of People’s Commissars: 17 Jews, 5
others; Moskow Cheka: 23 Jews, 13 others.10
Douglas Reed, badly wounded as a British soldier during
WW I, returned to Germany before WW II as a correspondent for
the London Times (of all WW II correspondents, Reed was the
highest salaried). He reported: “Among the names of 556 high
officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-19
were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the other Socialist parties
were 55 Jews and 6 others.”11

The composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik parties

outside Russia (in Hungary and Bavaria) was similar. This is
substantiated by Professor Pipes, who writes: “In Hungary, they
[the Jews] furnished 95% of the leading figures in Bela Kun’s
dictatorship [and were] disproportionately represented among the
Communists in Germany and Austria, and in the apparatus of the
Communist International.”12
Here is Reed’s startling but factual analysis. Such facts
hold true today, not only in Russia, but here in the United States:
Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented
less than one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevik Russia,
they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater. This
was plain reporting and if the report had related to “Ukrainians,” for
instance, instead of “Jews,” none would have objected; the mere act of
reporting a fact became the ground for secret denunciation because the
fact related to Jews…hence, anti-semitic.13


Bolshevism of itself is meaningless without a force behind
it. That force today is embodied in the United Nations. That same
force is currently active in a gigantic effort to subvert our
Constitution and our “muscle,” namely, the US military, and put it
under the control of the UN.
This is the ultimate betrayal.
In his classic work Modern Times, Paul Johnson cites the
beginning of the modern world as 1905 when Einstein introduced
to that world his theory of relativity. This led, according to
Johnson, to the belief, for the first time at a popular level, that there
were no longer any absolutes; of time and space, of good and evil,
of knowledge, above all of value. Mistakenly but perhaps
inevitably, relativity became confused with relativism.14
He points to a trio of imaginative German scholars who
offered explanations of human behavior: Marx described a world
in which the central dynamic was economic interest. To Freud, the
principal thrust was sexual.

Nietzche also was an atheist; however, he saw God not as

an invention but as a casualty. He wrote in 1886, “The greatest
event of recent times – that God is dead, that the belief in the
Christian God is no longer tenable – is beginning to cast its first
shadows over Europe.”15
The “Will to Power,” as Nietzche believed, was a more
tenable … plausible explanation of human behavior. So, of course,
did Lenin and Stalin.
A letter written by Baruch Levy to Karl Marx (1879)
predicts the future, which is now:
The Jewish people, taken collectively, will be its own messiah. It
will attain mastery of the world through the union of all the other human
races, through abolition of boundaries and monarchies…through the
erection of a universal Republic, in which the Jews will everywhere enjoy
universal rights.
In this new organization of mankind the sons of Israel will
spread themselves over the whole inhabited world…since they belong all
to the same race and culture-tradition, without at the same time having a
definite nationality, they will form the lead element without finding
The government of the nations, which will make up this
universal Republic, will pass without effort into the hands of the
Israelites, by the very fact of the victory of the Proletariat. The Jewish
race can then do away with private property, and after that everywhere
administer the public funds.
Then shall the promises of the Talmud be fulfilled. When the
time of the Messiah has come, the Jews will hold in their hands the key to
the wealth of the world.16
This letter, written in 1879, served as the springboard for
several subsequent events. It is in fact the key linkage of the
terrors of the Talmud to the formulation of International Zionism in
1897 as a political tool to accomplish the stated objectives.
The Revolution in Russia by William Eleroy Curtis
appeared in the May 1907 issue of The National Geographic
Magazine. It is a concise documentary comprising his first-hand

account of the revolution which began as a result of the Russo-

Japanese War, and subsequently led to the 1918 murder of the Czar
and his family, and the takeover of all of Russia by the Bolsheviks.
Curtis states that in a wave of unprecedented terror in 1906
(while he was in Warsaw) 7,300 persons were killed and 9,000
wounded, including 123 governors, generals, chiefs of police and
other high officials. Thirty thousand revolutionists were arrested
and most of them were sent to Siberia, while 221 were executed.
Twelve railway trains were held up and robbed of government
treasure and 400 government liquor stores were robbed and destroyed
(chief government source of revenue).17
He also stated that of the revolutionary leaders nearly all
belonged to the Jewish race and the most effective revolutionary
agency was the Jewish Bund (Union).
The government has suffered more from this race than from all
of its other subjects combined. Whenever a desperate deed is committed
it is always done by a Jew, and there is scarcely one loyal member of that
race in the entire Empire.18
“Ethnic Cleansing and Soviet Crimes Against Humanity”
by Dr A. B. Kopanski (The Barnes Review, Dec 1997), outlines the
brutal butcheries by the Soviets who “holocausted” Baltic, Slavic,
German, Polish, Caucasian and Turkic peoples during the period
This above all else – control the money! It was monetary
control that made possible the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in
1917. G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island
is a good available source for detailed coverage of this aspect of
the takeover of Russia. Read especially his Chapter Thirteen -
"Masquerade in Moscow,” in which Griffin states:
One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the
Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the
downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the
Tsars…financing came from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in
Germany, Britain, and the United States.… This amazing story begins
with the war between Russia and Japan in 1904. Jacob Schiff, who was
head of the New York investment firm of Kuhn Loeb, had raised the

capital for large loans to Japan. It was due to this funding that the
Japanese were able to launch a stunning attack against the Russians at
Port Arthur and, the following year, to virtually decimate the Russian


Stalin ordered the purging of all potential partisans of
Hitler’s army in 1939, three years before Germany’s invasion of
Russia, code named “Barbarossa.” Hundreds of thousands of
“reactionaries and fascists” were “prophylactically” shot or
deported to the Gulag (Glavnoye Upravlenye Ispravatelno-
Trudovikh Legerei), Siberian slave-labor camps established in
Stalin issued a decree (5 Mar 1940) to murder by firing
squad 14,736 Polish military, along with 10,685 Poles held by the
NKVD in detention camps at Ostashkov and Starobielsk. This
document was handed over by Boris Yeltsin to the Polish
government in 1992 as an act of “reconciliation.” Smersh,
composed mainly of Jewish commissars, used the technology of
mass executions; e.g., in the prison cells of the Soviet steamer
Dzhurma 12,000 captives froze to death near Wrangel Island;
1,650 Polish deportees died in the winter in unheated and
overcrowded cattle cars; 15,000 interned Polish officers,
intellectuals, teachers and doctors, disappeared in the Okchotzk
The killing fields of Katyn Forest were exhumed in 1943 to
reveal thousands of Polish POWs butchered by the National
Committee of Internal Affairs (NKVD – Narodnyi Komissariat
Vnutriennikh Del.) Stalin informed Polish Premier Stanislav
Mikolajczyk that he had “liquidated” 20,000 Ukrainian nationalists
and conscripted another 200,000 suspected Ukrainian enemies of
the Soviet Union into the Red Army.
Douglas Reed names names of those who set up “The First
Despotic Utopias,” among them, Lenin, Kamenev, Stalin, Trotsky,
Karl Radek, Iron Felix Dzerzhinsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Plekanov,

“The end of the old order, with an unguided world adrift in

a relativistic universe, was a summons to such gangster-statesmen
to emerge,” Reed states. “They were not slow to make their
Just as Lenin, Trotsky and Iron Felix believed that violence
was an essential element of the Revolution, so today our own
gangster-statesmen also employ terror and oppressive police power
to subjugate the citizens and create the ultimate despotic police
state here in the United States.

THE fatal linkage between International Zionism and Fabian

Socialism was forged in the Zionist-instigated Treaty of Versailles.
It was designed to destroy Germany as the central power in Europe
and to make it ripe for bolshevization, following the rape of
Russia. It paved the way for the eternal Jewish dream of global
conquest by controlling a “League to Enforce Peace” which came
to be known as the League of Nations. Congress was wise enough
then to prevent our becoming a signatory to that evil scheme for a
one-world government. Two other related acts took place in the
drama of the “Great War”; one was the Balfour Declaration laying
the groundwork for a Jewish homeland in Palestine (1917); the
other, creation of a sympathy factor for the “persecuted” Jews.
The sympathy card was dealt after World War I. It was at
this time that the idea of a holocaust of six million was hatched.
Former governor of New York, Martin Glynn, in October 1919,
spoke of “the extermination of 6 million Jews and the holocaust of
European Jewry during the Great War.”22
Because each of these schemes was a necessary adjunct to
total world conquest, another war would be staged to put them into
place. It was first vitally necessary to spread the poison of
Bolshevism across the European continent.
By the use of a strange mix of the “scum of society,” fellow
travelers, socialists – Fabian and otherwise – ideologues and
intellectuals, plus agents provocateur and for-hire spies, the Red
Terror spread quickly across Europe, penetrating into Spain and
Italy, as well as hapless France, thence to the Western Hemisphere,
even into the inner sancta of the White House, the Supreme Court
and Congress.
These shocking aspects, as Dr. Israel Shahak addresses in
his Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three
Thousand Years, directly relate to The Law as contained in the

Talmud, especially the Kol Nidre, or All Vows which affords a Jew
forgiveness in advance for all of his lies, perjury and transgressions
of the coming year. (We will look more closely at the Talmud in a
later Chapter.)
Who were the liars? Professor Arthur Koestler in The
Invisible Writing describes how “fascist atrocities” were fabricated
in “the lie factory” run by two inspired professional liars, Willi
Muenzenberg and Otto Katz, both later murdered on Stalin’s
One of Muenzenberg’s Communist cronies, then dwelling
in absolute splendor in Hollywood, was Stanley Lawrence. In fact,
in the 1930s, he and V. J. Jerome, another Bolshevik boss, founded
the Hollywood branch of the Communist Party. It was controlled
from Party headquarters in New York.
Lawrence and Jerome raised millions from what Lawrence
dubbed “fat Hollywood cows to be milked,” according to K. L.
Billingsley on “Commie Dearest: The Hollywood Ten’s 50th
Birthday” (Heterodoxy Dec 1997).
One of the most pressing tasks confronting the Communist Party
in the field of propaganda is the conquest of this supremely important
propaganda, until now the monopoly of the ruling class,” said Comintern
official Willi Muenzenberg. “We must wrest it from them and turn it
against them.24
And turn it they did! We now have such current
Hollywood Bolsheviks as Stephen Spielberg and Michael Eisner
milking (or mulcting) the great American public. When Stalin had
Muenzenberg executed – for whatever reason – he certainly didn’t
kill off the “Lie Factory.” It is still alive and well in Hollywood.
It was Abbe Augustin Barruel, writing in his massive work
on the French Revolution in 1798, “Memoirs Illustrating the
History of Jacobinism,” who used the expression propter metum

Judaeorum (for fear of the Jews) in connection with a pair of

“secret adepts,” Messieurs Turgot and Necker, who had served
King Louis XVI as prime ministers. Both of these skilled
gangster-statesmen formed monopolies to manipulate bills of credit
and commodities, such as corn. Both were driven by two all-
consuming goals.25
At a later date, but still addressing the Jacobins – now
called Bolshevists – it was Winston Churchill who addressed the
role of Russia in World War I. Give the man credit; he knew the
difference between the country called Russia as an historical state
and the criminals who hatched the plot to take over Russia and
subjugate its peoples under the Soviet Bolsheviks. Churchill’s
views appeared in another massive work, The Great War,
published by George Newnes Ltd. Churchill summed up his views
in the London Daily Telegraph on 4 Dec 1930:
Those who, like myself, are inveterate opponents of all that
Bolshevism stands for whether in subversive corruption or despotic rule,
are prone to dwell on its root characteristic. It is unnatural.
A monster has born into our modern world.… It possesses the
science of civilization without its mercy, the fanaticism of religion
without God, the exploitation of human passions and appetites without
any ideal beyond their gratification – and that not achieved.
I have repeatedly warned my Liberal and Socialist friends…that
they will never get any satisfaction out of the Russian Communists. We
are in the presence of a sub-human degeneration which, if not luckily
inherently morbid, would reduce great nations, nay, all mankind to the
conditions of the White Ant. Or again, it is a cancer bacillus feeding and
spreading itself upon the starving body, thriving by the very process
which tortures and destroys its victim.
Undeterred by this advice, many have tried the experiment. All
have been disillusioned. All in turn have sought to clasp that clammy
hand. All in turn have recoiled, injured, infected, or at least defiled by its
chill, poisonous sweat.…
…Will the Soviet Government ‘get away with the goods’ in
Russia? Will they succeed in diverting the wrath of the Russian people at
the horrible and utterly needless privations which they are now enduring,
into a harmless and imaginary canal?

I am by no means sure that they will not. The combination of the

powers of Terrorism without limit or compunction, and of caucus
machinery, newspapers, the broadcast, and the cinema, applied to a
primitive people, isolated from all external news and bowed in grinding
toil, is not to be measured.
It is by no means certain that, if these forces of soulless
barbarism and modern inventions once get us down, we could ever
recover or escape.
…My only regret is that Europe and the United States did not
make a more resolute effort to rescue the Russian people from the awful
fate by which they are now gripped.26
Alas, here we are 70 years from Churchill’s stirring words
sounding the alarm and some 200 hundred years after Abbe Barruel
dwelt on that root characteristic… “it is unnatural”; and we find
ourselves in an identical strait of abject terror and virtual
subjugation. We, in our turn, have clasped that clammy hand – for
whatever reason – and now we recoil, “injured, infected, or at least
defiled by its chill, poisonous sweat…”
Is there no antidote?
The very tactics and techniques used to enthrone Lenin and
his gangster-statesmen, such as Felix Dzerzhinsky and Leon
Trotsky, are today being implemented with a vengeance in the
United States. A small group of dedicated gangster-statesmen with
a fanatical will to power, and backed by international financial
oligarchs with absolutely no scruples whatsoever, are seizing the
critical levers of power and straining for the ultimate brass ring – a
one-world despotic government under the United Nations.
A quick scan of these “elites” in Washington DC and New
York City, of the media moguls, of multi-nationalists and
internationalists, and especially of the megabankers and
investment-house gurus, will put a familiar face on our own
gangster-statesmen. What Lenin and his Bolshevist thugs
accomplished in a few short months during the Russian
“Revolution” is being accomplished at a much slower pace, but
just as effectively, here in our country. All we lack at the moment
is the Red Terror, but bet on it, it is coming. Can we stop them?

President Bill Clinton announced on 21 Jan 1999 that he is

contemplating a Domestic Terrorism Team to be headed by a
military commander and funded with a $2.8 billion budget to
combat alleged terrorism on US soil. (New York Times 22 Jan 99)

The danger of terrorism on US soil stems directly from

Clinton’s reckless and criminal bombing of six sovereign nations:
Yugoslavia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Albania and Iraq. Such
acts of terror and destruction motivated a leading terrorist, Osma
bin Laden, to state that all Americans, including “those who pay
taxes,” are now his targets.
Using terrorism as an excuse, the Clinton administration
made extraordinary plans to use military force against American
Secretary of Defense William Cohen said in an Army
Times interview that “Americans soon may have to choose between
civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection”;
Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre floated the
idea of designating some US troops as a “Homeland Defense
Command” to impose military rule within the United States;
The Army War College journal Parameters (Autumn
1997) predicted that “terrorism will almost inevitably trigger an
intervention by the military” and “legal niceties…will be a minor
Clinton’s Executive Order 12919, “National Defense
Industrial Resources Preparedness,” gives FEMA dictatorial
authority over communications, energy, food, transportation,
health, housing, and other resources. Clinton can also invoke
“emergency” powers to deal with any perceived emergency.28
What we desperately need is a cadre of true patriots well
versed in the truths of recent history who are able and willing to
expose these gangster-statesmen (say thugs) for what they really
are. Coupled with these modern-day penmen, we need courageous
publishers and distributors who will get the unvarnished truth into

the hands of thinking people throughout the world, who then might
rise up and break the binding chains of Bolshevism and slavery.

BY mid-1999, the long knives were being sharpened in the

barracks and cantonment areas throughout Russia by the military
officers, particularly those of the elite units. To put it bluntly, they
were fed up. They had been pushed to the wall by the Yeltsin
regime, first by his two top guns in Moscow, Anatoli Chubais and
Boris Nemtsov, who were the principal ministers in the austerity
policies demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
throughout 1994-97.
And then carried out, by a not-so-strange alliance between a
small group of super oligarchs and international financiers with a
clique of bureaucratic bagmen who fought and connived and
cheated their way to the very pinnacles of Russian
political/economic power; of course, with a continuing and very
able assist from their like-minded cronies here in the United States.
One of the top leaders of these not-too-disparate groupings
was Boris Abramovich Berezovsky (45) who had risen in the
scheme of things from a once low-level position in the government
to a car dealership in Moscow, and thence to bank ownership under
what is euphemistically called “privatization,” to one of the
world’s richest billionaires.
This author attended a high-level secret briefing on 5
January 2000 at a secure military facility in Northern Virginia
where the conference room was “swept for bugs” just prior to the
proceedings. A top civilian intelligence officer and Soviet expert
from the Defense Department led off the discussions relating to
recent happenings in Russia at the close of the century. He was in
Moscow just prior to what he called “the forced resignation of
Boris Yeltsin and replacement by the hand-picked Vladimir Putin
as president.”

The briefing officer requested anonymity, hereinafter

referred to as Mr. X.
Mr. X stated that Russia, under the control of oligarchs (6
of the 7 are Zionists), has become a mirror image of the political
and financial corruption endemic at the highest levels of
government here in the United States:
“It represents a not-so-strange marriage between the financial
oligarchs and the media barons, which together, not only control the
market place, but the minds of the mostly unthinking public, which can
easily be persuaded to vote for a particular pre-selected candidate.”
He emphasized that the elections for deputies to the Duma,
which took place on 19 December 1999, were tightly controlled
from the Kremlin; or, more exactly from Yeltsin’s inner circle,
known as “The Family,” comprised of such newly-minted
oligarchs as Boris Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich, Yeltsin’s
daughter, Tatanya Dyachenko, and a select few thugs, gangsters
and opportunists who assisted in placing Yeltsin in the position of
president, following the fake coup d’état in 1991 when Mikael
Gorbachev was ousted.
Mr. X stressed that many of these same arch-criminals went
after seats in the Duma with a vengeance in the 19 Dec 1999
elections, as a win would give them total immunity from
prosecution for any and all crimes committed, including murder
and grand theft. Both Berezovsky and Abramovich sought and
won seats in the Duma; both ran in provinces located far from the
capital. Since Berezovsky owned the only two TV stations able to
reach across the broad expanse of Russia, he was able to ensure
favorable comment for himself and other members of the newly
formed Unity party, and to smear or black out any opposition.
In fact, it had been Berezovsky, with his virtually unlimited
loot, who had organized the creation of the Unity party in Sep
1999, only three months before the election. Mr. X stated that it
was also Berezovsky who had “convinced Yeltsin to fire Stephasin
and replace him with the spy chief, Vladimir Putin, a month

Mr. X then brought up another mirror image. As if on cue,

a series of horrific explosions rocked Moscow and two other cities
in September, crumbling four multi-storied apartment complexes
and murdering nearly 300 people in the middle of the night.
Chechen terrorists were immediately blamed. Putin’s popularity
skyrocketed virtually overnight, as he declared war on the
breakaway province of Chechnya.
…thinking people in Moscow and St. Petersburg supposed that
the FSB had simply taken a page from the FBI and ATF here in the
United States, following the blow-up of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma
City. The finger of blame was pointed immediately at “terrorists,” and by
adroit use of the controlled media, the unthinking public – roughly 85%
of the population – was convinced. Just as was the case with the federal
building in Oklahoma, the Russian government moved its bulldozers onto
the bombed sites and buried the debris, thus destroying any evidence that
may have implicated the government or its Cheka secret police, the
Mr. X then quoted General Alexander Lebed, former
governor of Russia’s largest province. Lebed was featured in a
Reuters news report dated 28 Sep 1999 in which he stated that the
bombing of Chechnya and the bomb attacks on apartments in
Moscow could be a part of a government bid to unify Russia.
This is what we call quid pro quo. And, of course, it relates
to the statement made by Mr. X that what was happening at the end
of the century in Russia was a mirror-image of identical
happenings here in the United States, and at the highest levels of
So, this Russian spy who came in out of the cold – one
Vladimir Putin – has become Mr. Squeaky Clean and will not
tolerate criminality or favoritism. Such rhetoric, whether uttered by
a Russian presidential candidate or an American wannabe, seems
to cry out for further scrutiny… commonly known in the US as a
background check.
Such a check was made by Richard C. Paddock of the Los
Angeles Times, among others, as well as by certain of our Defense
intelligence specialists here in the US, including not only Mr. X of

previous mention, but two of this author’s close associates; one,

Dan Michaels, now retired, was at one time a top Soviet analyst
and intelligence officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).
Dan is fluent in Russian and translates selected Russian
newspapers on a weekly basis. Another, Colonel J. Richard
Niemela, USAF (Ret), a former fighter pilot and once head of the
US military advisory group in Norway. Gleaning their voluminous
data reveals a glaring fact, that Vladimir V. Putin, despite his stated
intent to clean house in the Kremlin, is very much a part of the
problem, having been an active member of “The Family” for years
and a more-than-willing participant in its intrigues, manipulations,
criminality and favoritism.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Consider the following:
A Reuters news report (21 Dec 1999), dateline MOSCOW -
President Boris Yeltsin and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in line
with Russia’s current hard-line mood, heaped praise on the Soviet-
era secret service, the KGB and its successors. “Several years ago,
we fell prey to an illusion that we have no enemies,” Itar-Tass
quoted Putin as telling a meeting of top security officials, marking
the Day of Security Bodies (the Cheka), founded 82 years ago,
December 20, 1917.
“We have paid dearly for this,” Putin said. “Russia has its
own national interests, and we have to defend them.” On Saturday,
Yeltsin sent a special message to security bodies, the Kremlin
service said. “The history of the Federal Security Service (the
FSB, successor body to the KGB) is part of the country’s history.
Brilliant victories and bitter defeats are inseparable in it,” the
message said.30
As we have seen elsewhere, what these two dynamic
Russian leaders were glorifying was the founding by “Iron Felix”
Dzerzinsky of the dreaded Cheka secret police, an organization
directly responsible over the years for the murder, deportation and
imprisonment in the Gulags of the frozen north of millions of
Slavic Russian peoples.

In yet another Moscow dateline, Paddock wrote (Los

Angeles Times, 4 Jan 2000) that “Tycoon Boris A. Berezovsky
likes to say that anyone can become president of Russia – as long
as that person has the backing of the wealthy elite and the media.
The billionaire Kremlin insider is about to prove himself right.”31
Paddock stated that Berezovsky has emerged as a pivotal
figure in events leading to Yeltsin’s resignation and the
appontment of acting president Vladimir V. Putin, “a stern, little-
known former spy who came to Moscow less than four years ago.”
He said, “Berezovsky is a key member of The Family, the inner
circle of Kremlin advisers revolving around Tatanya
He quoted Marina Salye, a former Leningrad City Council
member: “The Family that has always feared to let the reins of
power go all of a sudden entrusts their fate to a man whom they
appear not to know at all. Isn’t that weird? It is simply not their
style; they have never acted so recklessly. So they must know
something that allows them to trust Putin fully.”33
Salye, ten years ago, headed an investigation into alleged
improprieties by Putin. He had apparently improperly issued
licenses for export of raw materials and nonferrous metals in
exchange for food shipments that never arrived.
Paddock traced the footsteps of Putin as he moved from
East Germany, where he served for ten years as a KGB spy, to
Leningrad where he became a member of the city government. He
soon rose to the position of deputy mayor. Following the
accusation of abuse of power, he was spirited off to Moscow in
1996, where he fell in with members of The Family. Apparently,
his benefactor of that time was Anatoly Chubais, a longtime
Yeltsin advisor, who brought Putin into the Kremlin and placed
him as deputy to Pavel Borodin, the head of the Kremlin’s property
department. Together, the pair oversaw the Kremlin’s huge real-
estate holdings.
Simultaneously with Putin’s arrival in 1996, Yeltsin was re-
elected, and rewarded Berezovsky for his campaign support with a

post as deputy secretary of the Security Council. Paddock opined

that this was the time when the paths of Putin and Berezovsky
most likely crossed. The next year, Yeltsin rewarded Putin by
appointing him as head of the Audits Directorate and naming him
as a deputy chief of staff.34
Shortly thereafter, as interim president, Putin sent troops to
regain control of Chechnya. Why this brutal massacre of Muslim
Checnyans? Oil of course – the second largest reserve among the
Caspian Sea neighbors (Azerbijan being the first).
The Russian electorate loved it and Putin’s popularity
As an indicator of the gigantic privatization grab then
underway by the financial oligarchs, the Onexim Bank Group
picked up Svyazinvest (major state telecom) and Norilsk Nickel.
Yeltsin then invited the six top bankers to the Kremlin, promising
them that to avoid infighting, he, Yeltsin, personally would oversee
the rest of the slated privatization to take place.
The “lucky” winners include Vladimir Gusinsky, head of
Media-Most group, Vladimir Potanin, head of Oneximbank,
Vladimir Vinogradov of Inkombank, Mikhail Fridman of Alfa
Bank, Mikhail Khodorkovsky of the Rosprom-Menetep Group, and
Aleksandr Smolensky of SBS-Agro Bank Group. An article by
Anton Surikov appeared in Zavtra (#33-194) Aug 1997. Zavtra is
the leading opposition newspaper in Russia and is supported by
most nationalist elements, including the Communists. The major
print and electronic media in Russia came increasingly under the
control of a very few super-rich oligarchs, such as Berezovsky and
The title of Surikov’s article is “The Disintegration of
Russia and the Jews.” He led off:
Under the leadership of Anatoli Chubais, the radical faction of
the Moscow financial elite is today undertaking desperate measures to
usurp the entire economic and political power in the country. The recent

revelation of the privatization of Svyazinvest demonstrated that the

actions of our first deputy premier were sanctioned by and in complete
accord with the wishes of the United States. This is attested to by the
participation in this scandalous affair of the international financial
speculator George Soros together with the speculative office ‘Deutsche
Morgan Grenfell’ which has close ties with the British Special Services
and a series of articles in the Western press that revealed the billions in
wealth possessed by Chernomydin, Berezovsky, Gusinsky and accused
them of engaging in ‘criminal activities’.35
He stressed in his article that the final objective of the
Americans is the complete deindustrialization of Russia, the
reduction of its population by 25 - 30% and the conversion of the
country into a raw-materials colony of the United States, which
would be governed to serve US interests by people like Chubais.
“The regional leaders are becoming much more active in
taking over control of impoverished enforcement agencies in the
various regions and are closely associated with the governors and
heads of the Republics by ties far more binding than with the
Moscow directorates,” Surikov reported. “If the military districts
and the governors agree among themselves not to accept Moscow’s
control, the disintegration process will inevitably assume avalanche
proportions. The hatred of the Russian provinces for the
‘democrats’ in the capital, for Chubais personally, and for the
super-rich middleman Moscow in general, has been at the critical
point for some time now.”36
Surikov recently returned from a visit to Jerusalem where
he met persons in official establishments. “The Israelis believe
that Moscow’s loss of control over events in the provinces will
become increasingly irreversible.” He further stated:
If you can believe them, real power in our country (Russia) is in
the hands of the largest number of Jews since 1937, including Chubais,
Nemtsov, Urinson, Berezovsky, and many others. Representatives of the
Jewish community completely control the financial world and the mass
media, which is to say that the Jewish community actually controls
There is a real danger that events will go uncontrolled, that there
will be a destructive social upheaval, and that the country will sink into
chaos. Concurrently with the growth of anti-Chubais, anti-democratic,

anti-Moscow sentiments among Russians living in the provinces is a

growing enmity toward the Jews who are seen constantly on TV and who
are viewed as tied in with the current power structure and the Moscow
ruling elite. All of this threatens to spill over into ethnic clashes and then
into a banal ‘cleansing’ of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novgorod,
Ekaterinburg and other major cities with large numbers of Jews.37
Surikov concluded:
In the words of the Israelis, they are now – in the event of force
majeure – preparing to evacuate quickly up to one million Jews and
relocate them in the ‘historical homeland’.38

A Russian economist, Sergei Glazyev, a member of the
government until 1993 when he resigned from his exalted position
as Minister of Foreign Economics following Yeltsin’s abolition of
the constitution, functioned as an advisor to the upper house of
parliament in 1996-97. In an article appearing in Pravda (8 Oct
1997), he warned that Russia is fast becoming a colony of the
“world oligarchy,” made up of international financial banks and
corporations who, together with their legal advisors and
theoreticians, constitute a “new world order.” Glazyev asserted:
These financial looters are controlling the second stage of
“reform” after devoting five years to disorganizing the economy,
appropriating state property and natural resources, and criminal
transfer of control of all wealth to foreign owners. To cover
interest to foreign creditors, this criminal oligarchy joined to the
power elite presently governing Russia, have usurped the state
budget into a tax-collection agency.39
According to Glazyev, the only salvation from trans-
national capital oligarchs is to develop a “resistance and recovery”
strategy, which would work only if “state policy proceeds
exclusively from the national interest.”40
Because what he outlines may also be happening here in the
United States, there is a possibility that either country could
attempt to extricate itself from the steady and increasingly brutal
subjugation by the international criminal oligarchy. The tools of

the trade are there and have been used many times since World
War II. One is the classic coup d’état; another, bloody revolution;
still another, civil war.
Washington Post writer, Thomas W. Lippman, wrote a
lengthy but informative piece in the 7 Nov 1998 issue on “Russian
Economic Recovery Plan Likely to Fail, US Diplomat Says.”
The diplomat is none other than Strobe Talbott, Deputy
Secretary of State, at one time Bill Clinton’s roommate at Oxford
University and, since 1993, Clinton’s chief Russian strategist.
Lippman caught his speech to Stanford University students in
November 1998. Lippman tells us that Talbott “offered
Washington’s strongest criticism so far of the economic plan
announced a week ago by Prime Minister Yevegeny Primakov.”41
Talbott warns that the Russian government’s economic
recovery program will almost certainly fail, and if it does, “we may
be in for some heightened tensions over security and diplomatic
Lippman points out that since Russia devalued the ruble
and defaulted on part of its debt, igniting a financial crisis that has
paralyzed the country, the Clinton administration has put
increasing distance between itself and Moscow.
Talbott, in his speech, offered a limited range of narrowly
focused endeavors, such as food aid. This largesse was designed
“to help see Russia through the winter.” The Japanese are kicking
in as well, with Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi informing Primakov
that Tokyo will provide an $800 million loan.
The US loan is for 20 years at 2% interest and a five-year
grace period. So much for Talbott’s “limited range of narrowly
focused endeavors.” In fact, we are seeing yet another US handout
in a series of handouts to the Bolsheviks never-ending since 1933,
when FDR rushed to recognize the Soviet Union, at the very time

when Stalin was starving, collectivizing and murdering 8-10

million Kulak peasant farmers.
In Modern Times, Johnson tells us that the famine of 1932,
the worst in Russian history, was virtually unreported. At the
height of it, George Bernard Shaw and his traveling companion,
Lady Astor, visited Stalin in Moscow. Her ladyship asked Stalin,
“How long are you going to go on killing people?” When he
replied “As long as necessary,” she changed the subject and asked
him to find her a Russian nurserymaid for her children.43
Referencing Lippman’s excellent article wherein Talbott
singles out “nuclear materials safety” as another way to help the
Russians, a program “in which the United States is about to pump
millions of dollars into finding new missions to keep scientists
employed in the formerly closed ‘nuclear cities’ of the Soviet
This is a subject Clinton had planned to raise with
Primakov when they were to meet in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
(called off because of Clinton’s pending impeachment),
particularly as it relates to “the flow of ballistic missile technology
to Iran.”45
Why Iran? To fully comprehend the game plan for that
Mideast country, check Chapter 11, Israeli Acts of Terror an ‘Open
Secret’, wherein Israel Shahak, a distinguished professor at
Jerusalem University, lets us in on the “open secret” that Israel is
poised to sling a few barbs (nukes) in Iran’s direction in order to
maintain its hegemony in the Mideast.
Talbott sees Russia – without all this external help – faced
with “three disagreeable choices: one, crank the printing presses
even faster; two, plunge deeper into default; or, three, stop paying
wages and pensions and conducting basic government functions."
“Whatever combination of these measures the government
adopts, Russia’s economic situation is likely to deteriorate further,”
Talbott concludes.46


We get a view of this enigma from a book, Russia’s Secret
Rulers, by another Russian, Lev Timofeyev (translated by
Catherine Fitzpatrick). Timofeyev, an economist, was thrown in
prison in 1985 for “anti-Soviet” activities, served two years of an
11-year sentence, and became a journalist promptly upon his
release. The thrust of his book has to do with the Soviet system as
one gigantic black market in goods, services, position and privilege
where a very few (a chosen few) at the very top – the nomenklatura
– lead a life of royal splendor and absolute power.
In this land of absolutes, where the State owns everything,
the only marketable commodity is power. It is here in the USSR
where the factories and the goods they produce, as well as such
tangibles as gold, silver, diamonds, paintings, can be bought and
sold through the underground market economy. It has survived
and thrived for over 70 years! He describes the power over the
work force and other humans as “the sweetest form of power there
And what we now see emerging, as a result of perestroika
and glasnost, is the exact parallel of an earlier age in Canada and
the United States after the bootleg era…the rise, through a strange
metamorphosis, from rags to rackets to riches to respectability.
From the time of the initial takeover of Russia by the
Bolshevists (cum Zionists) in 1917, there has been a thriving
underground criminal class which sprang up spontaneously in the
major cities and rapidly spread throughout all the republics. We
could call it a mafia, but there were no Italians as such; a few
Georgians, Letts and Uzbeks, but just as in the United States and
Canada, the leadership, the brains and the business acumen was
(and is) Jewish. This particular group in what became the USSR
had one advantage over their counterparts in America; there were
no inhibiting rules and regulations, no written laws and no
morality. The criminal class shared a heritage which could be
classed as law – the Babylonian Talmud – with the ruling class, the
secret police and the Red army; and, of course, that law does not

recognize as criminal any “taking advantage” of the goyim or

Timofeyev can be considered an expert in the role of the
black market in Soviet affairs, having lived with it and studied it
face to face, so to speak, although from a slightly different
perspective. Simis was a lawyer, Timofeyev a journalist cum
economist. From both accounts, an identical picture emerges
which can hardly be refuted. That view is one of close and
continuous liaison between the nomenklatura and the criminal
underworld, with the KGB acting as a catalyst (appropriately
bribed and “taken care of”) in order for the racketeers to pass from
“criminal” to “entrepreneur.”
Of course, under Lenin and his cohorts, a harsh code of
laws emerged which, coupled with terror and repression and mass
murder, established totalitarianism as never seen or practiced in
modern times. One would have to revert back 2,500 years to the
basic source model for such repression, to the return of the tribes of
Judah and Benjamin from Babylonian captivity. They brought
with them the Babylonian Talmud and the “oral tradition of the
elders,” both based on hate and vengeance, and calling for utter
destruction of their enemies.
A curious kind of camaraderie has always existed in the
USSR, uniting various apparaturas with the ruling nomenklatura
and their “enforcers,” whether Cheka, NKVD, KGB or GRU, so
that even though this underground “entrepreneurship” was both
informal and illegal, it survived and thrived and became most
recently the very basis for privatization and the setting up of a “free
market” system.
This in fact was and is a very important part of the
international game plan for world control, which must start in the
economic sphere and then spread into the political and
What we should find particularly engrossing about these
fairly recent revelations emanating out of the former USSR is that
they are being revealed by erudite Jews who either never were

Communists or Zionists, or have turned their backs on this

inherently evil and totalitarian system.
The most frightening aspect of these revelations is that the
two systems of “entrepreneurship,” with roots in Babylonian
Talmudism, flourished under two ostensibly opposite economic
systems, “Communism” in the USSR and “Capitalism” in the US.
And now, every political indication points toward uniting
these two disparate systems under the banner of one-world
“Socialism.” That same group – what Churchill called “the most
formidable sect in the world” – have risen to riches and
respectability here in the United States. They have come the route
from pushcarts and loansharking to prostitution, bootlegging and
extortion, to chain stores and shopping malls, to stock and
commodity manipulation, to banking and investment.
(Destroying the Republic)

For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he
that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.
Jeremiah 5:26


T HE Bolshevization of America commenced in 1933 with the

coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the highest office of
the land. His 12-year reign saw the transition of our form of
government from a Republic to a Democracy, and thence to an
In fact, one could look at the paternal FDR as the first
Caesar of the American Century. President Clinton fancies himself
as the second, and therein lies the danger. In order to comprehend
what is happening to us as a distinct people who had pioneered and
developed this once-great nation as a Christian society from about
1620 until 1901, one must look more closely at the man whom we
cherish as FDR, and particularly examine the cunning cabal who
expertly collaborated with him before, during and after his 12-year
To understand FDR, one must understand his New Deal.
For a good source, look to a book published in 1995, Burden of
Empire, by Garet Garrett, which is a collection of his revealing
essays, especially “The Revolution Was,” published in 1938. Here
is a startling quote:

There are those who still think that they are holding the pass
against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing
in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the
Night of Depression singing songs to freedom.
There are those who have never ceased to say very earnestly,
‘Something is going to happen to the American form of government if we
don’t watch out.’ These were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in
words. They had forgotten their Aristotle. More than 2,000 years ago he
wrote of what can happen within the form, when ‘one thing takes the
place of another so that ancient laws will remain, while the power will be
in the hands of those who have brought about the revolution in the state’.1
Well, friends, it happened – in 1933. And those of us who
still hope to hold the pass (or the gate, or the bridge) are still
gazing in the wrong direction, for the enemy is inside the gates,
and while we valiantly stand guard “at the ready,” our patrimony is
being plundered.
In Garrett’s work, we see – finally, and perhaps too late –
that he accurately and aptly characterizes the New Deal as the
“revolution within the form.”
My friends, ask not whence comes the revolution; it has
passed us by. Garrett knew it and expounded upon it in 1938; and
yet, we wait…why? Garrett tells us that it was a “silent
revolution” and implemented by a “scientific technique” which
was intentionally prepared from the outset to bring about domestic
socialism as a result of, and a solution to, the planned and
manipulated “Great Depression.”
And each carefully calculated step along the way, FDR and
his court handlers (the “administrators” of the New Deal)
scientifically selected the next step in order to “ramify the authority
and power of the executive.”
FDR engineered the New Deal that brought about a
massive transfer of power from the citizens to the central state.
Garrett informs us that the next step taken by the “administrators”
was designed to “strengthen its hold upon the economic life of the
nation…extend its power over the individual…degrade the
parliamentary principle…impair the great American tradition of an

independent, constitutional judicial power…weaken all other

powers, and exalt the leadership principle.”2
Garrett concludes:
The revolutionaries were on the inside, the defenders were on the
outside. A government that had been supported by the people and was so
controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so
controlled them. Much of it is irreversible.3


A glaring and unemotional fact of the Rooseveltian reign as
president of the United States from 1933 to his death in 1945 is
that he was totally helpless physically, in that he could neither
dress himself nor even go to the bathroom unassisted. Struck
down by polio in 1924, he not only never walked again, but could
not even stand alone. He was in fact the superb puppet of which
the Elders of Zion speak so eloquently in their Protocols.
Could a man who could not even minister to his bodily
needs run a normal household, much less a country in the throes of
financial disintegration? Ponder that a moment as we look at a
partial listing of those who really ran the country, and then to
Whittaker Chambers in his testimony Witness.
Bernard Baruch, unofficial President of the US; Judge
Samuel Rosenman, Head of the Brain Trust, advisor and speech
writer; Prof. Raymond Moley; Prof. Felix Frankfurter; Henry
Morgenthau, Sr. and Henry Morgenthau, Jr.; Harry Dexter White;
Alger Hiss; Judge Benjamin Cardozo; Charles Taussig; Nathan
Margold; Charles Wyzanski; Prof. Leo Wolman; Rose
Schneiderman; Isador Lubin, Jr.; Sol Rosenblatt; Jerome Frank;
Mordechai Ezekile; Herbert Feis; David Lilienthal; Sidney
Hillman; Prof. Albert Taussig; Alexander Sachs; Maurice Karp;
Robert Freshner; Robert Strauss; Donald Richberg; Ferdinand
Pecora; Samuel Untermayer; Prof. James Landis; Samuel
Dickstein; Herbert Lehman; James Warburg; David Stern; Henry
Horner; Louis Kerstein; Ben Cohen; Walter Lippman; William
Bullitt; Adolf Berle.4

Here is an unalterable fact: of the 75 close advisors and

high government officials with whom FDR surrounded himself,
upon assuming the office of the Presidency, 52 were Jewish. Add
to that number their “lesser brethren” who had been surreptitiously
slipped into policy-making positions in all the governmental
departments. Recognize too that of these interconnected groupings,
most, if not all, were either card-carrying Communists or fellow
Professor Howard Sachar, in his History of the Jews in
America (1992), boasts the following:
Following Roosevelt’s election to the presidency, Brandeis
prepared a detailed blueprint for a major segment of the New Deal reform
program. He discussed it at length with Frankfurter. Both agreed that
much would depend on Frankfurter’s ability to secure key assignments for
his protégés. Gradually, those prospects materialized, as professor found
important slots in Washington for his ablest former students and disciples.
There were scores of these young people, so many that the press began
dubbing them ‘Frankfurter’s Happy Hot Dogs.’
Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of
government during the 1930s. If their numerical presence was less than
spectacular, their influence was more than noteworthy. So was their
visibility. 5
Whittaker Chambers gives us a plentitude of names in his
revelation Witness:
Lee Pressman, Nathan Witt, John Abt, Dr. Philip Rosenbleitt,
Marian Bacharach, Philip Reno, Schlomer Adler, Alexander
Trachtenberg, Morris Karp (brother-in-law of Molotov), Heda Gompertz,
Walter Krivitsky, Charles Kraemer, Victor Perlo, Harold Ware, Sam
Kreiger, Eve Dorf, Abraham Silverman. 6
These were the direct and totally treasonous links to the
Soviets. Consider this passage from Witness:
In the persons of Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, the Soviet
Military Intelligence sat close to the heart of the United States
Government. It was not yet in the Cabinet room, but was not far outside
the door. In the years following my break with the Communist Party, the
apparatus became much more formidable. Then Hiss became director of
the State Department’s office of Special Political Affairs and White
became the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.7

Chambers continues:
In a situation with few parallels in history, the agents of an
enemy power were in a position to do much more than purloin documents.
They were in a position to influence the nation’s foreign policy in the
interests of the nation’s chief enemy, and not only on exceptional
occasions, like Yalta or through the Morgenthau plan for the destruction
of Germany, but in what must have been the staggering sum of day-to-day
decisions. That power to influence policy had always been the ultimate
purpose of the Communist Party’s infiltration. It was much more
dangerous, and, as events have proved, much more difficult to detect, than
espionage, which beside it is trivial, though the two go hand-in-hand.8
Chambers reveals the depths of penetration of the
government under FDR by a curious mix of International Zionists
and Fabian Socialists linked directly to Soviet Bolshevism
(Communism; earlier, Social Democracy; now, once more, Social
Democracy). And FDR had not only encouraged it, but reveled in
what he was doing, for he saw himself ultimately as the First
President of the World Government under a United Nations.
One other quote from Chambers is highly pertinent as
regards to Socialism and its companion, terrorism, for those who
have made deep penetrations of our government in such areas as
Justice, FBI, BATF, and the CIA. Here is Chambers:
It was perfectly clear, too, that if socialism was to stem the crisis
and remake the world, socialism involved a violent struggle to get and
keep political power. At some point, socialism would have to consolidate
its power by force.… Here was no dodging of the problem of getting and
keeping power. Here was the simple statement that terror and dictatorship
are justified to defend the socialist revolution if socialism is justified.
Terrorism is an instrument of socialist policy if the crisis was to be
overcome. It was months before I could accept even in principle the idea
of terror. Once I had done so, I faced the necessity to act.9
A world-renowned author, playwright and poet, the
Hungarian patriot, Louis Marschalko, in his 1958 masterpiece The
World Conquerors, speaks eloquently of the role of International
Zionism since its formation in Basel, Switzerland in 1897, and its
continuing goal of world domination under a “United Nations”:
Christian resistance should have followed at the moment when
Bolshevism broke out in Russia and when the work of Jewry became

visible through the Versailles Treaty. The message of Christendom

should have been the restoration of unity in disorganized Europe, and the
elevation of the Christian concept of hierarchy that would guard against
the individual being reduced to herd level.
Bolshevism as well as the soulless liberal capitalism should have
been effectively mastered by their only real adversary – by Christian
resistance.… Perhaps Christ himself might have come with his scourge to
drive the money-changers out of the House of God, thus restoring justice,
goodwill and social peace, and once more address his Christian peoples
with Peter’s forthright words: ‘Save yourselves from this untoward
generation!’ 10
But Christianity was reluctant to adopt revolutionary
methods in order to wrench world power out of the hands of those
whom Christ assailed on Maundy Thursday. The spirit of
Christianity should have impressed itself upon public life, upon
governments, upon the press and the trade unions, but it failed
miserably to fulfill its mission.
International Zionism declared war on Germany’s National
Socialism in 1933, for they saw in it the seeds which would elevate
the German people from the total degradation into which they had
plunged following the Talmudic revenge of the Versailles Treaty.
They thus set the scene for the savage carnage of World War II.
Here are some quotes:
“The US has entered the first phase of a second war.”
(Henry Morgenthau, Jr., just appointed Secretary of the Treasury
by FDR; Portland Journal, 12 Feb 1933).11
As reported by Forest Davis (author of “What Really
Happened in Teheran?” in the Saturday Evening Post, 20 May
Morgenthau was preparing for the resumption of American-
Soviet relations which became a fact shortly after FDR assumed the
Presidency. The first Soviet ambassador to the US was Litvinov [real
name: Finkelstein].12
“I am for war!” (Rabbi Stephen Wise, 8 May 1933)13

Coupled with these bellicose statements was the earlier

declaration of war on Germany and Christianity by International
Zionists. Jewish groups combined to publish a full-page ad in the
New York Times on 16 Sep 1932, stating inter alia: “Let us boycott
anti-Semitic Germany!”14
This theme was enlarged by radio broadcasts and
newspaper advertisements in 1933 by Samuel Untermyer of the
World Jewish Congress, who proclaimed inter alia (New York
Times, 7 Aug 1933) that Zionists were “the aristocrats of the
World” and were declaring a “holy” war against Germany and its
Continuing to beat the kettle drums of war, Vladimir
Jabotinsky, perhaps the world’s leading Marxist terrorist, stated (25
Jan 1934) “We shall let loose a spiritual and material war of the
whole world against Germany.”16
A revealing article published in the London Sunday
Chronicle (2 Jan 1938) under the heading “500,000,000 Pound
Fighting Fund for the Jews,” included this threat and promise:
The Jew is facing one of the biggest crises in his troubled
history. In Poland, Rumania, Germany, Austria, his back is to the wall.
But now he is going to hit back hard.… The great international Jewish
financiers are to contribute approximately 500,000,000 Pounds [$2
billion, 500 million]. The sum will be used to fight the persecuting states.
The battle will be fought on the world’s stock exchanges. Since the
majority of the antisemitic states are burdened with heavy international
debts, they will find their very existence threatened.”17
Rabbi Maurice Perlsweig, head of the World Jewish
Congress, told a Canadian audience (Toronto Evening Telegram,
26 Feb 1940): “The World Jewish Congress has been at war with
Germany for seven years.”18
Ludwig Lewisohn, Zionist Organization of America, stated
in an article carried in the September 1942 Jewish Mirror (NY)
inter alia:
The Jewish people is the symbol of the nature of this war.
Nothing else.… On this central point, on this very heart and core of the
whole matter the West is still recalcitrant.… Yes, the Jews are the chief

enemies of National Socialism.… This is the Alpha and Omega, the

beginning and the end of the whole matter. 19


Social reform in America during the height of the 1930s
Depression was called the New Deal, which means the new
distribution. Marschalko again: “This will be the year for sounding
the trumpets in America [1933]…our bankers, our socialists and
our journalists will be blowing the trumpets and our Brain Trust
will execute the New Deal at the expense of the American pioneer-
population…the only remaining question: Whom are we going to
put in the Presidential Chair in Washington?”20
The rest is recent history, for his name was Franklin Delano
Roosevelt…but, who was he, really, and who was Eleanor?
Robert Edward Edmondson in his famous book I Testify
refers to the Roosevelt family tree compiled by the Carnegie
Institute (1934) from which it is evident that the President of the
United States from 1933 to 1945 was of Jewish descent:
These people came to America in 1682, led by the patriarch
Claes Martenzen van Rosenvelt and on the distaff side Janette Samuel.
Originally of Spanish Sephardim Jews who had escaped from Spain to
England in 1492, their tree is studded with Jacobs, Isaacs and Samuels.
Franklin and Eleanor were cousins.21
The New York Times, 14 Mar 1935, quotes the President:
In the distant past my ancestors may have been Jews. All I know
about the origin of the Roosevelt family is that they are apparently
descendants of Claes Martenzen van Roosevelt who came from Holland.22
The Washington Star on 20 Feb 1936 published a
genealogical chart prepared by the Carnegie Institution, under the
direction of Dr. H. H. Laughlin (7 Mar 1934), “Famous Sons of
Famous Fathers – The Roosevelts,” which depicted the family
lineage of both Franklin and his cousin, Theodore, running back
through Isaac, Jacobus, Johannes, Nicholas to Claes Martenzen van
Rosenvelt. The Times of St. Petersburg, Florida ran an article (14
Apr 1934) regarding the nationality of the Roosevelt family, based

on an interview with the former governor of Michigan, Chase S.

Although a Republican, the former governor has a sincere regard
for President Roosevelt and his policies. He referred to the ‘Jewish
ancestry’ of the President, explaining how he is a descendant of the
Rosocampo family expelled from Spain in 1620. Seeking safety in
Holland and other countries, members of the family, he said, changed
their name to Rosenberg, Rosenbaum, Rosenblum, Rosenvelt and
The New York Herald-Tribune (8 May 1937) featured an
article, later carried coast-to-coast by the Associated Press, stating
that “President Roosevelt will receive the tenth award of the
Gottheil Medal for distinguished service to Jewry.” The medal
featured the head of Roosevelt on one side and the six-point
Solomon Star, synagogue symbol of possession and world power,
on the other, with a mystical “good luck” idiom in the center of the
star. The awarding of the medal included a card bearing the
following inscription:
Good Luck and Wisdom to Franklin D. Roosevelt, our modern
Moses, leading Jewry in ‘The Promised Land’ under the ‘Seal of
A US Genealogist, B. Schmalix, writing about the
genealogy of the Roosevelt family (14 May 1939), stated:
In the seventh generation we see the mother of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt (Sarah) as being of Jewish descent. The Delanos are
descendants of an Italian or Spanish Jewish family – Dilano or Dillano –
one of whom had drafted an agreement with the West Indian Company in
1657 regarding the colonization of the island of Caracao.25
As we entered the stage of Bolshevism here in America in
1933 under FDR, Bernard Baruch controlled the 351 most
important branches of American industry during WW II, while
Alger Hiss conducted the talks with Stalin. It was Einstein,
Oppenheimer and David Lilienthal who produced the atomic
bomb, while Fiorello La Guardia and Herbert Lehman managed
UNRRA. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., along with his chief protégé,
Harry Dexter White (Dexter Weiss), controlled the US Treasury

for the entire twelve years of the Roosevelt reign and prepared a
splendid plan for the extermination of the German people.
Bernard Baruch, a Sephardic Jew whose family came from
Europe via Brazil to North America in the early 1700s, has become
legendary. Mrs. Noma Aguilar, as of 2000 is living in California,
recalls that her father, Benjamin Booker Linton, was, with such
luminaries as Joseph P. Kennedy, a member of the War Production
Board. Upon the closing of World War I, Baruch, whose salary as
chairman was one million dollars a year, boasted to the other
members, “We made you all millionaires, now we will get the next
war started and you can all become billionaires.”
One who saw clearly in the 1930s what FDR and his
“Reds” in government were doing toward destroying US
sovereignty and aligning our country with the Soviets in order to
set up a world socialist power was Ralph Townsend. Perhaps his
best work was There Is No Halfway Neutrality, published in March
1938, more than three years before Pearl Harbor. Townsend
exposed the machinations in the establishment media to bring
America into a war with Japan:
Efforts to involve America abroad are now more elaborately
organized than in 1898 or 1917. Alien aims are plain. Only our strictest
neutrality toward all – with favors to none – can hold urgently needed
trade and provide a basis for America’s continued peace.
Of course the agitators aren’t calling for war outright – not yet.
Their first step is to build the state of mind which leads to war. Once they
generate sufficient hate, the rest is easier.… That is similar to the path by
which a shrewd minority launched the United States into needless wars in
1898 and 1917. Only later were the many crooked deals which
engineered our entry revealed. Only after the World War was it
disclosed that dominant forces had agreed to get America into it in return
for political concessions. The success of a few scheming scoundrels in
that feat was called ‘America’s great moral choice’.
Most leaders in the campaign for trouble with Japan are on
record as ardent friends of the Soviet Union. Communist party members
agitate everywhere in the effort to boycott Japan.… Red aims are plain:
(1) Generating the notion that Japan is an enemy, thus paving the way for

US aid to the Soviets as an ally against Japan; (2) Tension in which an

incident may be fanned into serious trouble; (3) Sympathy for Chinese
Reds now fighting Japan and on the edge of controlling China’s tottering
government; (4) Promoting unemployment among US workers by halting
silk imports and cotton exports, with resulting distress which could be
blamed on the Japanese.
If war with Japan can be arranged Reds will gain enormously in
political power here. Just as in 1917 the government will declare
America under special wartime emergency rule. This will again put the
country under a complete dictatorship as it was under Woodrow Wilson
in wartime. But there will be an important difference. Many high
officials in our government now are known to favor Soviet theories and
These alien-minded officials will become dictators in their
departments if war can be arranged. Thus far Americans have
successfully objected to their Bolshevik schemes. But under special war
powers opposition will be called treason. Objectors will be jailed. This
is not imaginary. We know what certain schemers in our government
have been trying to do. We know that with wartime powers they would
be able to do it.
After ‘peace’ came this increased power of Reds in America
might be broken only by severe civil war. Well-meaning Americans
stirred by talk of needless trouble with Japan in the name of Chinese
freedom are thus playing into the hands of a minority eager to destroy all
remaining freedom here at home.
Any movement seeking followers by falsification must be viewed
with distrust by thinking and honest people. The movement to make
trouble with Japan is almost wholly of this kind. Agitators call the
conflict in China a war on democracy. Democracy never existed in
Knowing that average Americans do not fancy a dictatorship,
agitators call Japan one.… No single individual in Japan exercises as
much power as our own president of the United States. Within modern
times no person in Japan has had the supreme financial authority now
enjoyed by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau in America, nor
has any Japanese exercised the supreme power over his nation’s industries
such as was enjoyed by Bernard Baruch in America during the World
Our choice is plain. If complaints against Japan were bona fide,
the agitators would not need to resort to so much misrepresentation.
Dangerous undercurrents of alien politics are obvious.… This is our
country – your country –. If foreign trouble comes it will be your trouble.

Only a fixed policy of no partisanism is insurance against it. In this aim

each good citizen can put personal influence to public service. But the
choice for peace must be definite – with no meddling, no boycotts, no war
There is no halfway neutrality.26

FDR’s “terrible secret in the closet” was revealed in
Roosevelt’s Road to Russia by George N. Crocker. He has
interwoven it into FDR’s travels about the world to meet with, first
Churchill, then Churchill and Stalin, in such exotic places as
Casablanca (January 1943).
Joseph Stalin could hardly have done better for his cause if he
had attended the Casablanca Conference in person. There, FDR did him
two favors. One was tentative, but the other was final and of historic
importance. For the first time he threw cold water on the incipient British
plan to strike at Germany through the Balkans and thus frustrate the
postwar domination of central and Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union.
Roosevelt pronounced “unconditional surrender” as the only
condition which could bring the wars in Europe and Asia to a close. This
meant that Germany and Japan, the two nations whose geographical
position and historic roles made them the only bulwarks against
Communist expansion, were not only to be defeated but were also to be
made prostrate. This, in the words of Lord Hankey, ‘removed the barriers
against communism in Europe and the Far East and greatly decreased the
security of the whole world.’ Hanson W. Baldwin has said that it was
‘perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war.’ For the United States
and many other nations, it was a calamity. 27
It was here at Casablanca that FDR was at the high pitch of
his wartime ebullience. John Gunther recalls:
He behaved in some ways like a conqueror and lord of the earth
when he reached Africa, giving out decorations almost as a monarch does;
he talked about the French empire as if it were his personal possession
and would say things like, ‘I haven’t quite decided what to do about
As for “unconditional surrender,” renowned military
historian Gen. J.F.C. Fuller put it thus:

First, that because no great power could with dignity or honour

to itself, its history, its people and their posterity comply with them, the
war must be fought to the point of annihilation.… Secondly, once victory
had been won, the balance of power within Europe and between European
nations would be irrevocably smashed. Russia would be left the greatest
military power in Europe, and, therefore, would dominate Europe.
Consequently, the peace these words predicted was the replacement of
Nazi tyranny by an even more barbaric despotism.29
And so, for more than two years longer, the Germans
fought on, with the courage of despair. On the other side of the
world, Roosevelt’s words hung like a putrefying albatross around
the neck of America and Britain. They led, in the words of Lord
Hankey, to “the culminating tragedy of the two atomic bombs in
Japan.” By mid-1943, the Japanese knew they would lose the war
and prayed for any face-saving way to accept defeat. But no; the
carnage had to continue, even after Emperor Hirohito informed the
Supreme War Direction Council that the war should be ended on
any terms short of unconditional surrender. The horrors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki followed.
George Fowler, writing in The Barnes Review (Jan 1995),
exposed “The Price We Paid for Roosevelt’s ‘Unconditional
Surrender.’” The time: mid-January 1943, the place: Casablanca,
the plotters: President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill.
Fowler cites a recounting of British intelligence activities by a
former top MI6 operator in Through the Looking Glass, which
made this crucial point:
By early 1943 even Josef Goebbels’ propaganda efforts could
not mask the precariousness of Germany’s situation. Had the American
and British governments been so disposed, this period marked the first
major time frame (save for mid-1940 when Churchill refused to entertain
Germany’s honorable peace overtures) when an initiative for peace could
have succeeded.30
Fowler tells us that British intelligence considered the
surrender of Germany’s Sixth Army at Stalingrad to be the start of
the cold war. “From that point, top MI6 figures concluded, Soviet

expansion aims should have been a primary consideration in

Western Allied war planning. Instead, FDR, meeting with British
Prime Minister Winston Churchill at Casablanca, slammed the
door on what many would consider not only an option but a
paramount responsibility to avert further bloodshed and
Fowler further quotes former Ambassador Charles P.
“Chip” Bohlen: “Responsibility for this unconditional surrender
doctrine rests almost exclusively with President Roosevelt.…”
FDR’s son, Elliott, present at Casablanca as an aide to his
father, quoted the President as saying: “Of course, it’s just the thing
for the Russians. ‘Unconditional surrender’. Uncle Joe might
have made it up himself.”
Fowler emphasizes that “there is solid body of evidence
spelling out how President Roosevelt rejected a prime opportunity
to end the European war in 1943. Had Roosevelt seized the
moment, he would have strengthened the West’s hand
immeasurably and cut the legs from under a murderous despot
named Josef Stalin.” He further states that the abject failure of the
1943 German peace attempts indicates that the British and
American warlords would “parley” with no one, not even those
who risked everything, their families included, in opposing Hitler.
“Many have concluded that they had always looked beyond Hitler
to the destruction of Germany itself.”31
Fowler concluded his brilliant essay by stating that
Roosevelt, who came in with Hitler in 1933, went out with him in
1945. Churchill lasted two decades longer:
He saw his beloved empire crumble, Britain enter succeeding
stages of economic and social rot, and Germany re-emerge as Europe’s
leading nation.
Ironically, one must conclude that those who placed their heads
on the block to kill Hitler might have heeded his words and saved
themselves the trouble.32


And now, those same shadowy forces who manipulated

both FDR and Churchill seem bent on destroying – or at least
bolshevizing – America.
Just who were these “shadowy forces” who convinced the
ailing FDR to push for “unconditional surrender”? We get a clue
from Unexplained Mysteries of World War II by William B Breuer
(1997). FDR and Churchill convened at the Hotel Anfa,
Casablanca, 13 January 1943. Before departing for home, FDR
and Churchill held a press conference. Breuer informs us that
“[W]ith scores of journalists avidly taking notes, the American
President casually observed: ‘Prime Minister Churchill and I have
determined that we will accept nothing less than unconditional
surrender of Germany, Italy and Japan.’
Seated beside the president and drawing on a large black
cigar, Winston Churchill was stunned. That was the first time that
the prime minister had heard the phrase ‘unconditional surrender’
used with regard to the current war.33
Later, a high official of the British government told
Churchill: “Unless these terms are softened, the German army will
fight with the ferocity of cornered rats.” Churchill, already on
public record, merely shrugged.
Breuer asks some cogent questions: “Had Franklin
Roosevelt, a cerebral politician long accustomed to speaking in the
global spotlight, truly been so muddleheaded as to make the
seemingly offhanded ‘unconditional surrender’ ultimatum? Or had
this unrehearsed press conference been a carefully calculated
scenario, cooked up by the president and a few key advisers in the
White House to trap Winston Churchill into a situation wherein he
could not disagree?”34
Churchill, time and again, proved a willing accomplice to
the Bolshevist plan for the total destruction of Germany and the
establishment of a one-world government. In the process, he
betrayed his country – just as did his naval chum, FDR. In the
words of the noted British historian, Col. J.F.C. Fuller, “the peace

these words predicted was the replacement of Nazi tyranny by an

even more barbaric despotism.”


Then came Quebec I (August 1943). It was another Big
Two conference. It was here that FDR and Churchill decided on an
Anglo-American invasion of France in the spring of 1944.
Churchill continued to argue here and later at the Teheran
Conference, that the invasion of Europe should be through the
Balkans, the “soft underbelly” of Europe. He wanted to “prevent a
Soviet rush into the area which would permanently establish the
authority of the Soviet Union there, to the detriment of Britain, and
incidentally to the United States.”35
Of course, FDR wanted that which came to pass, the
invasion of Europe through France. According to Crocker,
“Churchill understood perfectly that what was involved was not the
winning of the war but the geopolitics of postwar Europe. At stake
was the heartland of the Continent.”
It was part and parcel of “the terrible secret in the closet”
which FDR shared with Harry Hopkins, Samuel Rosenmann,
Bernard Baruch and other “great” Americans. Were they also
What Churchill was really talking about was not the war
with Germany, but the other one – the hush-hush one – of militant
Bolshevism, incarnate as the New Russian dictatorship which had
risen from the grave of the last Czar, against the capitalist West,
which, by the basic assumption and written words of both
Leninism and Stalinism, it was pledged to annihilate.36
Crocker states:
The busiest beaver at Quebec was Harry Hopkins. He had in his
pocket an extraordinary top-secret document, headed ‘Russia’s Position.’”
It was an arrogant pronouncement of political policy of far-reaching

consequences for the nation’s future. The contents were not revealed to
the American public until after Roosevelt’s and Hopkin’s deaths. Its
precise authorship has never been disclosed. It was claimed that it was
extracted from ‘a very high level’ United States military strategic
What “high level”? The office of the Chief of Staff? Or
from the Commander-in-Chief? It was a model of what a “military
strategic estimate” should not be. Consider a couple of key
Russia’s post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one.
With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her
tremendous military forces.…
The conclusions from the foregoing are obvious. Since Russia is
the decisive factor in the war, she must be given every assistance and
every effort must be made to obtain her friendship. Likewise, since
without question she will dominate Europe on the defeat of the Axis, it is
even more essential to develop and maintain the most friendly relations
with Russia.38


Then came the Cairo Conference in November of 1943.
Crocker writes that it was here that FDR’s self-conceit took
on a new dimension. For, beginning with the Cairo meeting with
Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek of China, Roosevelt began to fall
victim to the messianic complex that had destroyed President
Wilson in 1919. “He began to envisage himself as the Master
Builder of the shiny new postwar world. It was a role he was
pathetically unsuited to attempt.”39
China had two enemies; first, the Japanese, which she could
have handled. Unfortunately, China faced a second enemy more
terrible than the first – internal Communist rebellion. It ultimately
destroyed the Chinese government and bolshevized the mainland,
helped along the way by such as General George Catlett Marshall
and his 1945-46 “Mission” to China, and ably assisted by such
Left-Wing “advisers” as Owen Lattimore, Lauchlin Currie and
John Carter Vincent.

Currie was, as the spy disclosures of 1948 reveal, very

much a working part of the Silvermaster espionage cell in
Washington DC. (See Witness for details.)
It was at Cairo that FDR notified the beleaguered Chiang
Kai-shek that he must take the Communists into his cabinet: it was
done clandestinely, as part of an under-the-table deal. It was also
here at Cairo that FDR, egged on constantly by Harry Hopkins,
prepared to invite, entice and even bribe the Soviets to come into
the war against Japan.
It was also at Cairo that FDR made one historic decision,
which is generally believed to have pleased Churchill. He selected
Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower to command Overlord, the
proposed invasion of Europe through France.
Then came the fateful meeting in Teheran in December
1943. It was here that Czechoslovakia was betrayed. It was here
that Churchill and Roosevelt secretly consented to Red Army
“liberation” of Czechoslovakia.
Dr. Eduard Benes, the last and tragic president of the First
Republic of Czechoslovakia, voiced the postwar bitterness of his
tortured people: “General Patton was stopped from liberating
Czechoslovakia by General Eisenhower acting on instructions from
Washington as a result of Teheran and Yalta. Patton had to stand
by while the Nazis were shooting Czechs until three days later
when the Reds came in.…”40
And it was here at Tehran where Stalin discovered that he
had the President of the United States dans sa poche (in his pocket)
. So closely guarded were some of the Teheran decisions during the
last months of the war that even Vice President Harry Truman (a
Senator from Missouri at the time of the conference) was unaware
of them and of their Yalta sequels. He was hurriedly briefed by
Hopkins, Rosenmann and Marshall when he was projected into the
Presidency in April 1945. By then he was already a prisoner of
Roosevelt’s folly.41

Significantly, it was the Bolsheviks in the United States

who were never in doubt about the decisive impact of what had
taken place. Getting their newest line through their international
grapevine, they quickly announced that Teheran had changed the
world. It had generated, they said, a new atmosphere in which
Communists (Bolsheviks) could work unreservedly in Washington.
Earl Browder, then chief boss of the American Communist party,
held a rally in Madison Square Garden (25 May 1944) where he
bellowed to 15,000 collected commies that Teheran had supplied
the pattern for the postwar world. Later, he celebrated that theme
in a book Teheran and After.42
FDR maintained a secret alliance with Browder throughout
the war. It was an artist, Josephine Adams, who acted as courier.
She met with FDR “38 and 40 times during the three-year period
preceding his death; meetings held in the White House or in FDR’s
Hyde Park home.” (Miss Adams testified under oath before a
subcommittee of the US Senate.) This was confirmed by Browder,
taking obvious pride in the fact that he had presented his “views on
world events” to the President by this device and adding that FDR
“appreciated the service I gave to him.”43
Was this too a part of the “terrible secret in the closet”?
It was in Teheran that FDR sprang his idea of “The Four
Policemen.” He conceived a United Nations organization
consisting of an Assembly, an Executive Committee, and an
enforcing agency, which he termed “The Four Policemen.” The
Soviet Union, the United States, Britain and China were to
comprise the constabulary.
Here is the gist of that conception, implemented with a
vengeance under Imperial Majesty, William Jefferson Clinton.
FDR outlined his plan at Teheran. It was enlarged and put in place
at Yalta:
Little nations threatening the peace would be handled by
blockades and embargoes. A major threat to world peace would arise if a
large power made a gesture of aggression; in this case, the Four
Policemen would send an ultimatum to the threatening nation, and, if the

demands were not immediately met, they would bomb and, if necessary,
invade that nation.44
And so it was that under another Imperium, ostensibly
headed by George Bush, Iraq was bombed back to the Stone Age in
1991 (Operation Desert Storm). Later, King William (Clinton)
would dispatch “smart bombs” and cruise missiles onto the
pockmarked soil of Iraq; and still later, hit Afghanistan and Sudan
with 79 Tomahawk missiles “to combat terrorism.” This was
followed by a supreme act of arrogance – and desperation – when,
as commander-in-chief, he ordered our military to strike Iraq with
bombs and missiles for “noncompliance” with a UN dictum.
On that fateful day (16 Dec 1998), Gen Henry “Hugh”
Shelton, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, had two choices: he could
comply (which he did, under the banner of bravado…Desert Fox);
or, he could resign (by calling his four Service chiefs together,
along with the commander of the Central Command, and
instructing them to “stand down,” i.e., not carry out the unjust and
illegal order from their commander-in-chief).
In a front-page article, under the banner “Shelton calls air
strikes timing ‘incredible’ but just,” Bill Gertz of the Washington
Times (9 Jan 1999) led off:
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday the
timing of recent military attacks on Iraq was ‘absolutely incredible’
because they took place so close to key events in the Monica Lewisnsky
impeachment scandal.
But Army Gen Henry H. Shelton insisted the strikes were based
on military advice and were not moves by President Clinton to deflect
political heat.45
The roots of this despotic destruction were formed at
Teheran. They were well-watered and pruned at Yalta where they
would later bear a bitter fruit. To our degradation, our body politic
still eats from that poisoned plant today, as our military, under the
fig leaf of NATO, wages a bloody non-war against the Serbian

Crocker writes of the farewell banquet hosted by Stalin

who proposed a blood-curdling toast. The strength of the German
army depended, he said, upon fifty thousand high officers and
technicians. His toast was a salute to shooting them “as fast as we
capture them, all of them.”
Churchill was horrified. Quick as a flash, he was on his
feet. His face and neck were red, says Elliott Roosevelt, who was
present. He announced that the British conceptions of law and
justice would never tolerate such butchery. Into this breach
stepped Roosevelt. He had a compromise to suggest. Instead of
fifty thousand, perhaps “we should settle on a smaller number.
Shall we say 49,500?”46
Here we see the implementation of the top-secret document
Harry Hopkins carried about at Quebec. Not only was Russia to
dominate Europe, but was also to be assisted and propitiated by the
United States in every possible way.
And it was here that FDR went into a private talk with
Stalin and Molotov about their plans to carve up both Germany and
A prelude to the sell-out at Teheran and Yalta was
contained in another secret paper, referred to as the Zabrousky
Document. It was in fact a personal letter, dated 20 Feb 1943, from
FDR to his friend and emissary to Stalin, Lev Zabrousky. Here is
the crux of that letter. For the entire text, see Count Leon de
Poncins’ amazing book, State Secrets:
Dear Mr. Zabrousky:
As I have already had the pleasure of telling you, together with
Mr. Weiss, I am deeply moved to hear that the National Council of Young
Israel has been so extremely kind as to propose me as mediator with our
common friend Stalin in these difficult moments, when any menace of
friction among the United Nations – in spite of the many, self-denying
declarations which have been obtained – would have fatal consequences
for all, but principally for the USSR itself.…

The United States and Great Britain are ready, without any
reservations, to give the USSR absolute parity and voting rights in the
future reorganization of the post-war world. She will therefore take part
in the directing group in the heart of the Councils of Europe and of Asia;
she has a right to this, not only through her vast intercontinental situation,
but above all because of her magnificent struggle against Nazism which
will win the praise of History and Civilization.
It is our intention – I speak on behalf of our great country and of
the mighty British Empire – that these continental councils be constituted
by the whole of the independent States in each case, with equitable
proportional representation.
And you can, my dear Mr. Zabrousky, assure Stalin that the
USSR will find herself on a footing of complete equality, having an equal
voice with the United States and England in the direction of the said
Councils. Equally with England and the United States, she will be a
member of the High Tribunal which will be created to resolve differences
between the nations, and she will take part similarly and identically in the
selection, preparation, armament and command of the international forces
which under the orders of the Continental Council, will keep watch within
each State to see that peace is maintained in the spirit worthy of the
League of Nations. Thus these inter-state entities and their associated
armies will be able to impose their decisions and to make themselves
We will grant the USSR an access to the Mediterranean; we will
accede to her wishes concerning Finland and the Baltic, and we shall
require Poland to show a judicious attitude of comprehension and
compromise; Stalin will still have a wide field for expansion in the little
unenlightened countries of Eastern Europe…he will completely recover
the territories which have temporarily been snatched from Great Russia.
Most important of all: after the partition of the Third Reich and
the incorporation of its fragments with other territories to form new
nationalities which will have no link to the past, the German threat will
conclusively disappear in so far as being any danger to the USSR, to
Europe, and the entire world.…
As I told you at the time, I was very pleased at the gracious terms
of the letter informing me of your decision and of the desire you
expressed to offer me in the name of the National Council of Young Israel
a copy of the greatest treasure of Israel, the scroll of the Torah. This
letter will convey the confirmation of my acceptance; to those who are so
frank with me, I respond with the greatest confidence. Be so good, I beg
of you, to transmit my gratitude to the distinguished body over which you

preside, recalling the happy occasion of the banquet on its 31st

anniversary … very sincerely yours, (signed) Franklin Roosevelt47


Nine months after the Teheran Conference, FDR and
Churchill met once more at Quebec. Overlord had been a
stupendous success and the Anglo-American armies were poised at
the Siegfried Line. The Soviets had pushed the Germans from
their soil and were now at the Vistula in Poland.
It was here in Quebec that both Churchill and Roosevelt
initialed the infamous Morgenthau Plan. Henry Morgenthau had
looked upon World War II as a punitive expedition against the
Germans for persecuting the Jews. Powerful circles centered in
New York City “induced” FDR to invite the Secretary of the
Treasury to Quebec, along with his able assistant, Harry Dexter
White (his parents were Jacob and Sarah Weiss who had emigrated
from Russia to America).
In brief, the Morgenthau Plan called for stripping, pillaging
and so destroying Germany that it would be permanently converted
into “a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in character.”
But that was not all. Even more diabolical punishment was
prescribed for the German people and their children and
grandchildren – Talmudic justice with a vengeance.
First, a list was to be made of Germans who were to be shot
at once upon apprehension and identification (still being carried
out by the Weisenthal group). Similar lists are also in existence
here in America – the “Red List,” the “Blue List” and the “Green
List,” each categorizing selected individuals as “dangerous to
government order and tranquillity.”
Second, the entire German population was to be held down
to a standard of living no higher than bare subsistence. Secretary
Hull called it “blind vengeance.” It was “blind,” as it was “striking
at all of Europe… The Treasury recommendation that the German
mines be ruined was almost breath-taking in its implications for all
of Europe, because various other countries relied upon German

coal for their industries.” As for turning Germany into a goat

pasture, Hull argued: “Seventy million Germans could not live on
the land within Germany. They would either starve or become a
charge upon other nations. This was a scheme that would arouse
the eternal resentment of the Germans. It would punish all of them
and future generations too for the many crimes of a portion of them.
It would punish not only Germans but also most of Europe.”48
Secretary of War Stimson was horrified at the idea of
turning “the center of one of the most industrialized continents in the
world” into a nonproductive “ghost territory.” He told the President,
“I cannot conceive of turning such a gift of nature into a dust heap.”49
And so, to Yalta…FDR’s last bloody footprint.
(Forging the Instrument for Peace)

We have seen the best of our time: machinations, hollowness,

treachery, and all ruinous disorders, follow us disquietly to our
Shakespeare, King Lear, 1605


T HE first plenary meeting was held on 5 Feb 1945 at the Livadia

Palace, where the seriously-ill Roosevelt and his entourage
were quartered. Bear in mind that Roosevelt had not been in
charge of the government for months. Churchill writes that, “With
Stalin and Molotov were Vyshinsky, Maisky, Gousev (USSR
ambassador to Britain), and Gromyko (USSR ambassador to US –
real name, Katz). Pavlov acted as interpreter.”1
All except Stalin were Zionists, and he was married to
Jewess Rosa Kaganovich, sister of the “butcher of the Ukraine,”
Lazar Kaganovich.
Yalta dealt primarily with how Germany was to be
dismembered, what lands of Poland the Soviets would take, and
what part of Germany would become Poland.
At Stalin’s request Maisky then expounded a Russian scheme for
making Germany pay reparations and for dismantling her munitions
industries. Churchill warned that “it would not be possible to extract from
Germany anything like the amount which Maisky had suggested should be
paid to Russia alone. Britain too had suffered greatly.”2

Churchill next discussed the world instrument for peace.

He stated that there was a large measure of support in the United
States for such a World Organization. They discussed voting
rights in the Security Council “…each member of the Council
should have one vote.”
The meeting the next day led to a curve ball being thrown
by Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Molotov (Benjamin Skryabin). Both
Churchill and Roosevelt suckered for it; both struck out. Molotov
announced that they were now satisfied with the new voting
procedure with the provision that the three Great Powers must be
unanimous. There was only one thing to be settled. Should the
Soviet Republics be members of the World Organization with
votes in the Assembly?
“We fully agree,” Molotov ended, “with the President’s
proposal about voting, and we ask that three, or at any rate, two, of
our Republics should be founder members of the World
Churchill writes, “This was a great relief to us all, and Mr.
Roosevelt was quick to congratulate Molotov.… My heart went
out to mighty Russia, bleeding from her wounds but beating down
the tyrants in her path.”4
Late that night, Churchill sent a dispatch to his Deputy
Prime Minister, Clement Attlee (who, even then, was under the
influence of Harold Laski and Judge Samuel Rosenmann) in which
he said, in part:
They also cut down their demand for 16 membership votes of the
Assembly to two, making the plea that White Russia and the Ukraine had
suffered so much and fought so well that they should be considered for
inclusion among the founder members of the new World Organization. 5
Stalin would sucker them again over the issue of whether
the Soviet-sponsored Lublin Government of Poland would tolerate
representation from the London Polish Government: Stalin’s views
won out in the end. He would later violate the border agreements
by advancing his forces deep into Poland and thereby displacing
over eight million Germans.

We had a situation at Yalta which probably existed earlier

at Dumbarton Oaks, and certainly later at Potsdam, where
Churchill and Stalin, representing Fabian Socialism and
International Bolshevism (Zionism), steamrollered the sickly
Roosevelt and sandbagged the pliable Truman. One only has to
look at the President’s staff at these meetings to know that they too
were in on the sellout which related directly to the San Francisco
World Organization meeting – May-June 1945. The seeds for that
meeting were planted at an estate in the District of Columbia,
known as Dumbarton Oaks, where “conversations” were held in
October 1944 among representatives of the major powers (US, UK,
USSR and China). The result of these discussions, commonly
known as the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, was a blueprint for a
world organization to be known as the United Nations.
Regarding Russian involvement in the war in the Pacific,
Churchill states in Triumph and Tragedy that, “The Far East played
no part in our formal discussions at Yalta. I was aware that the
Americans intended to raise with the Russians the question of
Soviet participation in the Pacific War.…”6
Roosevelt, Harriman and Bohlen met with Stalin on 8 Feb
1945 to discuss his demands. Two days later the Russian terms
were accepted (with certain exceptions, which Harriman mentioned
in his testimony before the US Senate in 1951). “In return Russia
agreed to enter the war against Japan within two or three months
after the surrender of Germany.”7
Churchill added: “I must make it clear that though on
behalf of Great Britain I joined in the agreement, neither I nor Eden
took any part in making it. It was regarded as an American
affair.… In the United States there have been many reproaches
about the concessions made to Soviet Russia. The responsibility
rests with their own representatives.”8
At the final dinner on 10 February, the President, who
seemed very tired, responded to a toast by recalling a visit Eleanor
had made to a school in the US. “In one of the classrooms she saw
a large map with a large blank space on it,” Roosevelt said. “She

asked what was the blank space and was told they were not
allowed to mention the place – it was the Soviet Union. That
incident was one of the reasons why I wrote President Kalinin
asking him to send a representative to Washington to discuss the
opening of diplomatic relations. That is the history of our
recognition of Russia.”9
Here, one begins to understand why Eleanor became a
strong voice in support of such Communist spies as Hiss, Currie,
White et al; and later, a member and staunch supporter of the
Zionist front organization, Americans for Democratic Action
Whether the story about a map in a classroom was true or
not doesn’t really matter. It was the final act in a sorry series of
world-altering events that took place at Yalta.
Hitler’s unsavory mouthpiece, Herr Joseph Goebbels,
perhaps said it best in an article printed in the 23 Feb 1945 edition
of Das Reich:
If the German people should lay down their arms, the agreement
between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin would allow the Soviets to
occupy all of Eastern and Southeastern Europe, together with the major
part of the Reich. An iron curtain would at once descend on this territory,
which, including the Soviet Union, would be of tremendous dimensions.
Behind this curtain there would begin a mass slaughter of peoples.… All
that would remain would be a type of human being in the raw, a dull,
fermenting mass of millions of proletarian and despairing beasts of
burden who would know nothing of the rest of the world except what the
Kremlin considered useful to its own purposes.…
The rest of Europe would be engulfed in chaotic political and
social confusion which would only represent a preparatory stage for the
coming Bolshevization.10
So, what really happened at Yalta? FDR never presented
the Yalta agreement to Congress as a treaty. Did he consider it an
“Executive Act”? Crocker says that he probably never gave it
much thought. “In essence, it was a personal agreement by
Roosevelt with the prime minister of Great Britain and Stalin of
Russia changing boundaries of Poland and other countries and

determining the nationality of some millions of unconsulted human

Arthur Bliss Lane, US Ambassador to Poland, branded the
agreement “a capitulation on the part of the United States.”
Horrified and saddened, he resigned and wrote a book entitled I
Saw Poland Betrayed.12
Former Ambassador to Russia and France, William C.
Bullit, later wrote of the infamous agreement: “No more
unnecessary, disgraceful and potentially dangerous document has
ever been signed by a President of the United States.”13
When Joseph C. Grew, the prewar Ambassador to Japan,
learned about the secret Yalta deal, he wrote a grave memo that the
State Department promptly locked up. Once Russia is in the
Japanese war, he predicted, “Mongolia, Manchuria and Korea will
gradually slip into Russia’s orbit, to be followed in due course by
China and eventually Japan.”14
Joseph Grew, as Acting Secretary of State in 1945, along
with several high-ranking military officers, fought courageously to
prevent the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. They were
overruled by such stalwart Americans as Judge Samuel
Rosenmann, Bernard Baruch and J. Robert Oppenheimer.
In his classic work Advance to Barbarism: The
Development of Total Warfare, F.J.P. Veale states:
The motivation behind the dropping of the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima may be said to be still a subject of dispute. It is certain that
Truman did not give the order for it to be dropped on the insistence of his
military advisers. Some of the scientists concerned in its construction
opposed this step on humanitarian grounds; others, including the famous
Jewish physicist Dr. Robert Oppenheimer were in favour because, they
urged, only by a test in war conditions could it be demonstrated that their
long and costly efforts had succeeded in creating a weapon of unique
power for taking human life. In short the Japanese people were to be
enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment.
At the inquiry before the US Atomic Energy Commission in the
spring of 1954 to investigate his alleged communist associations, Dr.
Oppenheimer explained: “When you see something that is technically

sweet, you go ahead and do it.… We always assumed that if the bombs
were needed, they would be used.… We wanted to have it done before
the war was over and nothing more could be done.”15
Which brings us back to our presidential potentate FDR:
what did he know (about the atomic bomb) and when did he know
it? Crocker explains:
The prime minister induced President Roosevelt to sign one
agreement at Quebec (August 1943) which was so secret that it lay hidden
for almost eleven years. It gave Britain an equal voice in the use of the
atom bomb, which the United States was soon to possess. In the first
week of April 1954, Sir Winston Churchill brought it to light in a debate
in the House of Commons, causing an uproar on both sides of the
Atlantic. It was at once apparent that the McMahan Act of 1946, which
restricted exchange of American atomic information with foreign powers,
had canceled the agreement, which few men knew anything about.
Congress had abrogated a secret agreement made by the deceased
President while having no inkling of it.
The secret agreement pledged that neither the United States nor
Britain would ever use the bomb against the other, that neither would
divulge any information to third parties without mutual consent, and that
neither country would use the bomb against a third nation without the
consent of the other. Actually, Roosevelt had made an unwarranted gift
of power to a foreign country, however friendly at the time. It is
unthinkable that the Senate of the United States would ever have ratified a
treaty conferring this veto power over weapons, strategy, and, in the
dawning nuclear age, American foreign policy itself.
On this too, the Secretary of State was kept in the dark. “I was
not told about the atomic bomb,” Cordell Hull’s memoirs reveal. “I did
not know about it until it was dropped.” But Klaus Fuchs and Harry Gold
and David Greenglass and the Rosenbergs knew about it. People of alien
and hostile backgrounds were being welcomed into installations where the
newest weapons were being developed and into governmental
The Communist party knew about the development of the atomic
bomb before the FBI, which learned about it not from the Roosevelt
administration but from undercover informants in Bolshevik circles on the
West Coast. FBI men got their first information in 1943 from the
Bolsheviks who had friendly contacts with some of the scientists at a
secret project at the University of California from which it was known to
be leaking, and the FBI was promptly requested to discontinue its
investigation of one of the scientists.16

Just before he left for the Yalta conference in February

1945, FDR received the momentous news at the White House that
the atomic bomb had a “99% certainty” of success. In a meeting
with Secretary of War Stimson and Gen Leslie R. Groves, director
of the Manhattan Project, Groves informed FDR that “it would
probably be ready in August,” and that it would be “extremely
Even as he was told of this “sweet technical success,” FDR
knew that it would not be needed to end the war in the Pacific. In
July 1944 in Honolulu he discussed the war in the Pacific with
Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. Chester W. Nimitz. He was
told that “Japan could be forced to accept our terms of surrender by
the use of sea and air power without an invasion of the Japanese
Crocker explains about the relationship of the atomic bomb
development to FDR’s decision to allow Russia to enter the war
against Japan when that tiny insular country had already been
When Roosevelt went to Yalta, he kept MacArthur and Nimitz
far away. He asked them nothing, told them nothing. In view of what he
did at Yalta, this would seem an incomprehensible neglect on his part to
avail himself of the counsel of the two men most qualified to give it. The
only explanation that makes any sense is that he already knew what their
advice would be, that it was not compatible with his plans, and that he
would not welcome having their opinions – overwhelmingly authoritative
as they would be – presented.
At this stage, elementary statesmanship for the security of
American interests in the Far East required that the Soviet Union be, at
almost any cost, dissuaded, discouraged, and forestalled from entering the
war with Japan. Roosevelt went to Yalta and secretly did just the
All of this has a bearing on what Crocker calls FDR’s
terrible secret in the closet.
“The secret which FDR guarded so obstinately could not,
from his point of view, be allowed to come out. He had too much

at stake. And public suspicion of it had to be stifled. It was not a

small secret, like those, which often burden politicians, such as
departmental scandal or some shady vote-trading deal or petty
personal graft. Roosevelt’s robust genius far transcended these
lesser stratagems. This man did everything in a big way; even his
secrets were gigantic. This one was as big as a war. In fact, it was
a war.”19
But it was not the war with Germany and Italy, nor was it
the clash with Japan.
There was also a third war, one which FDR was determined
should be hidden from the masses of the American people by a
camouflage which was to be his chef-d’oeuvre. That war involved
Soviet Russia, the fount of Communism (Bolshevism). In it,
Russia was the aggressor…on the march, both literally and
figuratively, waging offensives with a perseverance and cunning
never before equaled in the annals of warfare. Crocker explains:
This secret war must not be confused with the others mentioned,
although they overlapped…the war which was dearest to his heart [Stalin]
and which was implicit in his ideological credo had started long before
Hitler’s Panzers rolled into the Ukraine and was to continue long after der
Fuhrer was a charred corpse under the rubble of Berlin and his Third
Reich but a memory. It was destined to prevent the return of peace and
security to the world… World War II was really three wars. Two of them
ended in 1945. The third one did not.…
The more immediate victims were Russia’s territorial neighbors.
On a broader scale, but with equal intensity of purpose, the war was being
waged against all of the capitalist countries of the world, by military
attack or threats of attack, subversive conspiracy and infiltration,
economic debilitation, or by a combination of these means.… The United
States and Great Britain, as the major bulwarks of democratic capitalism,
were, of course, archenemies whose ultimate downfall was essential.…
Germany and Japan, the two great buffers against Bolshevik expansion in
Europe and Asia, were first to be removed from the path in two
simultaneous wars. England, France and the United States would help
Russia crush Germany. The United States could vanquish Japan
singlehandedly; there was no doubt about that. The Soviet Union would
not have to dissipate its strength fighting Japan, but only manage to
swoop in at the surrender. A new chaos would be precipitated in China

and into the power vacuums thus created in both Europe and Asia, Soviet
Russia would then step.
Through his sources of information in the United States, some of
whom were in high places, Stalin knew that FDR could be relied upon to
see at least this phase of the program through. He was not mistaken.20

YALTA, however, was only another step along the way to a one-
world Zionist government that actually began with the Barbarians’
(Jews who are not Jews) invasion of Russia in 1917. It could not
have happened without the collusion of Fabian Socialist factions in
Britain and the United States.
It was also at that final dinner during the Yalta conference
that Stalin revealed his intense hatred for monarchies. Insofar as a
united socialist Europe is concerned, the chief stumbling block is
the British Royal Family and the adulation of it by not only the
British, but by the various Commonwealths about the world,
especially Canada. Churchill relates:
At the Yusupov dinner Stalin had proposed the King’s health in
a manner which, though meant to be friendly and respectful, was not to
my liking. He had said that in general he had always been against kings,
and that he was on the side of the people and not that of any king, but that
in this war he had learnt to honour and esteem the British people, who
honoured and respected their king, so he would propose the health of the
king of England.21
This bears on current events in England where the Royal
Family has become an object of ridicule and scorn, due, on the
surface to the sexual romps of Fergie and of Di, who was murdered
in Paris in 1997. This makes for good tabloid journalism, but the
intent and purpose goes much deeper. The British Royal Family
must go, just as the Czar and his family had to go in 1917…not for
what it is, but for what it represents, a unifying nation state.
And, like Christianity in the annals of International Zionism
– Fabian Socialism, it is a no-no.
The Communists (Bolshevists/Zionists/Fabian Socialists)
have proven time and again that these centripetal forces must be
destroyed before a peaceful and beneficent one-world socialist
government can be set up. Royalty must go. Christianity must go.

One only has to look to what the Bolsheviks did to France

early on, and then to Spain. Franco prevented its happening by
establishing a dictatorship that lasted 36 years. We may eventually
have to do likewise here in the United States.
And then came the heating up of something called the “cold
war,” artfully designed to follow up the sellout to the Soviets at
Yalta; i.e., to turn eastern Europe (including Poland and East
Germany) over to Stalin and his fellow Bolsheviks.
The leaders of the West – occasionally referred to as the
Free World – appeared to make some really stupid moves during
those years; however, we now know they were smart moves by the
Barbarians within. Looking back at the various high-level
conferences… Dumbarton Oaks, Quebec, Teheran, Yalta, Potsdam
… each was a calculated sellout to the Soviets, and done by design.
And the chief instrument for carrying it out was an
Imperium set up here in the United States in 1933 under Franklin
Delano Roosevelt.
The forces behind these sellouts are brought out in living
color in Whittaker Chambers’ book Witness. He was indeed
witness to the near-total sellout on the part of those incredibly evil
men, whose intent throughout this century has been either to
destroy or to enslave the rest of mankind.
Another witness to this facet of history was the renowned
British author and World War II London Times journalist, Douglas
Reed, who stressed:
The money-power and the revolutionary-power have been set up
and given sham but symbolic shapes (“capitalism” or “communism”) and
sharply defined citadels (“America” or “Russia”). Suitably to alarm the
mass-mind, the picture offered is that of a bleak and hopeless enmity and
confrontation.… But what if similar men with a common aim secretly rule
in both camps? …I believe any diligent student of our times will discover
that this is the case.22
Professor Carroll Quigley emphasized in Tragedy and

Jerome Greene is a symbol of much more than the Wall Street

influence in the IPR (Institute of Pacific Relations). He is also a symbol
of the relationship between the financial circles of London and those of
the eastern United States which reflects one of the most powerful
influences in twentieth-century American and world history. The two
ends of this English-speaking axis have sometimes been called, perhaps
facetiously, the English and American establishments.
There is, however, a considerable degree of truth behind the
joke, a truth which reflects a very real power structure. It is this power
structure which the radical right in the United States has been attacking
for years in the belief that they were attacking the communists.23
Reed, in his prolific writings, aptly identified a segment of
this power bloc, especially in the financial and pseudo-intellectual
circles, in The Controversy of Zion. However, Quigley was
reluctant to tie the Jewish “nation” and/or international Zionism
directly into the English and American Establishments.
So later was Jean-Francois Revel, a remarkably prescient
writer; and yet, it is there in his works for any diligent student of
our times to discover.
Revel, once editor and director of L’Express, France’s
leading news magazine, wrote a string of best-sellers, most of them
translated from the French by William Byron, including How
Democracies Perish, The Totalitarian Temptation, Without Marx
or Jesus. He gives the diligent student another view of the ongoing
“struggle” between the two power blocs of “East” and “West”
(America vs. Russia… capitalism vs. Communism). Revel is
astute in his perceptions of the dissimulation, disinformation,
propaganda, hoaxes and outright lies that have characterized the
relationships between these two ostensibly opposing forces – the
Soviet Union and the United States.24
And it is here he misses an important point, whether
intentionally or on purpose. Repeating Reed: “What if men with a
common aim secretly rule in both camps?25
Revel singles out the great con game perpetrated on the
West… that the world was supposed to have been “divided up”
between the two superpowers at Yalta in Feb 1945.

And here, to perpetuate the myth of Yalta (as well as such

other hoaxes as the Holocaust’s death of six million), we see the
vital need of those who secretly rule in both camps to monopolize
the media, even as Lenin, Stalin and other Bolsheviks stressed.
Revel further shreds the Yalta myth by pointing to a more
recent, more exemplary and better-documented capitulation, the
surrender at Helsinki, “It was there in 1975, and not at Yalta in
1945, that the West formally recognized the legitimacy of the
Soviet Union’s postwar annexations and colonizations.”26
What Revel reveals throughout his work is that time and
again the West caved in to the Soviets, beginning especially at
Yalta which “represented a bonanza of unilateral concessions.… It
displayed the West’s inability to understand Communism and thus
to negotiate with the Communists.… Yalta, with its sister
conferences at Teheran and Potsdam, simply delivered Eastern and
Central Europe over to Stalin without sharing in anything.”27
Yalta was a watermark, of course, but there were events
long before Yalta which should have flashed signals to the more
astute that the Barbarians within the gates – firmly ensconced at the
highest levels in the Roosevelt administration – was selling our
country and the republic down the river to international
In the book, Mission to Moscow, written by our then
ambassador, Joseph E. Davies, covering the years 1936-38, he said,
“all the facts supported his personal opinion that the Soviet
Government’s word of honor was as good as the Bible.” (This was
the time of Stalin’s purges and show trials and mass executions, of
which Davies had to be aware.)28
There are current historians who assume that during the
conferences at Yalta and Teheran, the West – meaning the US and
the UK – were convinced that Moscow really desired peace. They
make both FDR and “Winnie” appear naive, if not stupid. We
should understand they were neither; that, in fact, they were

carrying on a continuation of their game plan which had begun

during World War I when Churchill as Lord of the Admiralty and
Roosevelt as an assistant Secretary of the Navy colluded (with
others) to bring about the sinking of the Lusitania as a trigger to
get America into that war.
These gentlemen – together with their Bolshevik handlers –
had a front-row seat, if not a direct hand, in such other joint
British-American exercises as the Versailles Treaty, the League of
Nations, the Bolshevist invasion of Russia, and the Balfour
Declaration (the trigger for the Zionist takeover of Palestine). All
of these ventures flowed naturally from the wellhead of the “Great
In later years, when they headed their respective
governments during the second war to make the world safe for
democracy, they colluded once more to bring the United States into
yet another European conflagration.
Naïve? Hardly. More likely, part of a grand design to
strengthen “Communism” which was a transitional name for
totalitarian Fabian Socialist-International Zionist one-world
If we look at it all in the light of men with a common aim
secretly ruling in both camps, the picture that emerges is one of
diabolical cunning.
We get an indication of that cunning from the official
publication, The Conference at Malta and Yalta, 1945, which the
State Department released on 16 Mar 1955. It revealed for the first
time that FDR had a private man-to-man chat with Stalin at the end
of the Yalta Conference and on the eve of the President’s departure
to visit King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. There came up the subject
of a Jewish homeland, which Stalin acknowledged “was a very
difficult one.” He stated that the USSR had tried to establish a
national home for the Jews in Birobidzhan, but that they had only
stayed two or three years and then scattered to the cities.

Roosevelt then stated that he was a Zionist and asked Stalin

whether he was one. Stalin replied that he was one in principle,
but he recognized the difficulty.30
Reed, in his 1956 book, The Controversy of Zion, explains
this phraseology:
In this passage, again, the Georgian bank robber sounds more
like a statesman and speaks more prudently than any Western leader of
the last forty years, none of whom have admitted any ‘difficulty’
(Churchill was wont to denounce any ‘difficulty’ as anti-Jewish and
Stalin later asked Roosevelt if he meant to make any
concessions to King Saud, to which the President replied that there
was only one concession he thought he might offer and that was to
give Ibn Saud “the six million Jews in the United States.”51 That
final statement was expunged from the official record; however,
the morning after the report was released in 1955, newspapers
across the land broke out in headlines. Reed cites the Montreal
Star as bannering: “World Capitals Dismayed, Shocked over
Disclosures of Yalta Secrets.”32
Reed says, “nonsense” indicating that by 1955 the masses
were apathetic about such things, “having been brought by control
of the press to the condition of impotent confusion foretold in the
Protocols of 1905.” He indicates that the history of the Yalta
papers shows that ten years after the war, power was still in the
hands of the essentially “foreign group” which during the war had
been able to divert supplies, military operations, and State policy to
the purpose of “extending” the revolution.
They were still able to override the public undertakings of
Presidents and to frustrate the will of Congress; they still held the reins.
This meant that the infestation of the American government and its
departments by agents of the revolution, which began with Mr.
Roosevelt’s first presidency in 1933, had not been remedied in 1955,
despite many exposures; and that, as this was the case, American energies
in any third war could in the same way be diverted to promote the

overriding plan for a communized world-society (Lenin’s third stage in

the process).
This undermining of the West was not confined to the United
States; it was general throughout the Western world.… A similar
condition was shown to exist in Britain, from which the great overseas
nations originally sprang, and in the two greatest of these, Canada and
Exposure of Bolsheviks at the highest levels of government
began in Canada. Reed clarifies this infestation in his book,
pointing out that it was a Russian who, at the risk of his life,
disclosed to the Canadian prime minister of that time, Mackenzie
King, that a network of espionage had been set up in Ottawa and
had burrowed deep within the Canadian Government. The center
of this group was the Russian embassy. Reed reports that when
King became convinced of the truth of Igor Gouzenko’s statements
he saw that they revealed “as serious a situation as ever existed in
Canada at any time.”34
King flew to the United States to alert President Truman,
and then to Britain to inform Prime Minister Clement Attlee. King
later revealed that the situation was shown by them to be “even
more serious in the United States and England.”35
Reed reports that Whitaker Chambers’ documentary proof
showed that Alger Hiss had been the center of a Soviet network in
the State Department, and that this proof had been available to, but
ignored by, two American presidents for six years.
Reed gives credit to “individual patriots,” including a new
Representative from California, Richard M. Nixon, who compelled
disclosure on the part of a reluctant government:
In the sequence to the Hiss affair a mass of disclosures followed,
which showed American government departments to have been riddled
with Soviet agents at all levels.36
England chose to do nothing for another six years, when
their hand was forced by the sudden disappearance of two senior
Foreign Office officials, Burgess and Maclean. Belatedly, the
British Foreign Office announced in 1955 that the two had been

under suspicion of conveying secret information to the Soviet

Government from 1949.
It was at this time that another Russian, Vladimir Petrov, of
the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, defected. The Australians quickly
formed a Royal Commission of three judges who were as thorough
as the Canadians. Their report revealed that the Soviet Embassy in
Canberra from 1943 on had “controlled and operated an espionage
ring” and gave warning that Soviet intelligence agents were still
operating in Australia through undercover agents entering the
country as immigrants.
Reed points out that all four of the governments
misinformed the public by concentrating on the issue of
“espionage,” which was relatively minor compared to the truly
grave condition which was exposed. “This was not the mere theft
of documents, but the control of state policy at the highest level.”
(Chambers says essentially the same in Witness.) Reed writes:
It was this that enabled arms, supplies, wealth, military
operations and the conduct of Western politicians at top-level conferences
all to be guided into a channel where they would produce the maximum
gain, in territory and armed strength, for the revolutionary State.
Exposure of this condition came only in the Hiss trial and its numerous
attendant investigations and disclosures. These showed that the
revolution had its agents at the top levels of political power, where they
could direct State policy and the entire energies of nations.37
He singles out Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White as the
chief traitors of that time, emphasizing Hiss’s predominant role at
the Yalta Conference.
Shortly after assuming office in 1933, FDR issued the
following decree:
By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the act
of October 6, 1917 (War Powers Act), as amended by Section 2 of the act
of March 9, 1933…I Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President of the United
States of America, do declare that a period of national emergency still
continues to exist and pursuant to said section do hereby prohibit the
hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates within the

continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and

corporations… 38
In that famous speech he ordered all persons to turn in to
the Federal Reserve System (a private corporation run by arch-
criminals) all gold holdings in their possession by 1 May 1933.
The current president may use the identical ploy by declaring a
national emergency as a result of “calculated acts of terror.”
Coupled to a horrendous financial implosion, plus the distinct
possibility of massive power grid failures, these criminal acts could
trigger anarchy, not only in the inner cities, but also in the
countryside of Middle America.
Declaration of martial law would be the logical result,
followed by implementation of a global despotic government under
the UN. It has been long on the drawing board. We were almost
there at the end of World War II in 1945. It has since been a
bloody road to global despotism.
(Was there a “Final Solution”?)

In working for Palestine, I would even ally myself with the devil.
Vladimir Jabotinsky, 12th Zionist Congress, 1921


A quick review of several pertinent facts which we have covered

in earlier chapters is in order. We saw the founding of
International Zionism in 1897 as a potent political force to unite
what its founders styled “the Jewish Nation.”
The two leaders of Zionism were Theodor Herzl and Chaim
Weizmann; however, they had a falling-out over where the new
Jewish homeland should be located. Herzl was ready to settle for
the British offer of Uganda. Never mind that Uganda was not
Britain’s to give: of course, neither was Palestine. We also
discovered that as a result of the infamous Versailles Treaty,
Britain received “mandated control” over Palestine from the newly
formed and equally infamous League of Nations.
Long prior to that event, the Sixth Zionist Congress
convened at Basle, Switzerland in 1903. The main speaker was Dr.
Max Nordau, who put the question of Palestine in its proper
context. He said, inter alia:
That great progressive power, England, in sympathy for our
people, offered the Jewish Nation, through the Zionist Congress an
autonomous colony in Uganda. While it was not Palestine, nothing is so
valuable as amicable relations with such a power as England. Thus,
accept the offer to create a precedent in our favor. Sooner or later, the
Oriental question – where England’s interests are – will have to be solved,
and the Oriental question means, naturally, also the question of Palestine.

Herzl knows that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the

whole world. Soon, perhaps, some kind of a world-Congress will have to
be called and England – the great, free and powerful England – will then
continue the work it has begun with the generous offer to the Sixth
And if you ask me now what has Israel to do with Uganda, let me
tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a
ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist Congress, the
English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference,
where, with the help of England. a free and Jewish Palestine will be
One of the many “American” citizens who attended the
Jewish Congress at Basle in 1903 was Litman Rosenthal. He
published Dr. Nordau’s speech in the American Jewish News (19
Sep 1919) and called it the “ladder revelation.”2
There were further rungs in the ladder that continued to
lead “upward and upward” before a “free and Jewish Palestine”
was actually created. Of prime importance was the secret alliance
between the top echelons of International Zionism and National
Socialism (Nazism).
Why was this natural alliance kept secret for so long a
Perhaps because its factual reportage would interfere with
the greatest propaganda coup of the 20th century, “the Holocaust of
six million,” the so-called “final solution.”
For one of the most meticulously detailed reports on this
astounding alliance, one must read The Secret Contacts: Zionism
and Nazi Germany – 1933-1941 by Klaus Polkehn, a prominent
East German journalist in the German Democratic Republic. It
appeared in the Journal of Palestine Studies.
The Jewish nation, in Palestine, represented by its
international governing body, the Zionists; and the German nation,
represented by Hitler and his National Socialists, had common
cause in that both groups wanted the Jews out of Germany (and
eventually out of Europe). This factor is highlighted by certain
visits to Berlin on the part of Zionist leaders from Palestine; e.g.,

Feivel Polkes, a general staff officer of the underground Jewish

militia, the Haganah, to his counterpart in the Reich, Herbert
Hagen, director of the Office of Jewish Affairs (Judenreferat) and
SS-head, Adolf Eichmann.3
Polkes told Eichmann (28 Feb 1937) that he was interested
above all in “accelerating Jewish immigration to Palestine, so that
the Jews would obtain a majority over the Arabs in his country.”
Eichmann and Hagen, on the invitation of the Haganah
commander, traveled to Haifa, Palestine on the ship Romania,
docking on 2 Oct 1937; however, the British authorities would not
let the two SS emissaries disembark (because of the ongoing Arab
revolt over the Jewish settlement in Palestine). They then went on
to Egypt, where they rendezvoused with Polkes in Cairo’s Cafe
Groppi (10-11 Oct 1937). The Haganah officer told them:
The Zionist State must be established by all means and as soon
as possible so that it attracts a stream of Jewish immigrants to Palestine.
When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals
laid down in the Peel Papers, and in line with England’s partial promises,
then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one’s
In his statement, the Haganah commander referred to a
Royal Commission set up under Lord Peel to examine the situation
in Palestine in 1937, after the outbreak of the Arab revolt. It laid
out a plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The
Peel Papers also throttled Jewish immigration to Palestine,
resulting in bitter enmity on the part of the Haganah underground
army towards the British. It led to a series of acts of terror and
assassination against the British military forces in Palestine.
Polkehn reveals that collaboration between the Zionists and
the German Reich was cemented by the Mossad Aliyah Beth which
had been created by the Haganah as an illegal immigration
organization. Emissaries of the Mossad (Pina Ginsburg and Moshe
Auerbach), with the blessings of the Reich authorities, set up
quarters in Berlin to carry out their immigration activities in 1938.

According to Jon and David Kimche, in their book Secret

Roads, the Mossad special mission “converged with the intentions
of the Nazi government.… Only with the support of the Nazi
leaders could the project be carried through on a large scale.” The
Gestapo had discussed with Ginsburg “how to promote and expand
illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine against the will of the
British mandate government.”5
In the summer of 1938 Eichmann met in Vienna with
another Mossad emissary, Bar-Gilead, who requested permission to
set up training camps for emigrants so they could be prepared for
their work in Palestine. Eichmann, after coordinating with Berlin,
granted permission, and supplied all requirements for the training
camps. Ginsburg, in Berlin, working with Nazi authorities, also set
up training camps.
In a revealing footnote, Polkehn states that Mussolini in
Italy had supported the right wing of Zionism, the Revisionist party
(forerunner of the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi) and permitted them
to establish a school for training navy soldiers. Vladimir
Jabotinsky, Revisionist party leader, had in 1932 made the
proposal that the mandate over Palestine should go to Italy,
because Mussolini would be more amenable than Britain to
furthering the cause of the Jewish State.6
Polkehn refers to economic agreements between the
Zionists and the German government even before Hitler’s rise to
power in 1933. “The Foreign Office had already taken up a pro-
Zionist attitude on many occasions,” including meetings between
Chaim Weizmann and State Secretaries von Schubert and von
Bulow. He also mentions the Zionist official Gerhart Holdheim,
who wrote:
The Zionist programme encompasses the conception of a
homogeneous, indivisible Jewry on a national basis. The criterion for
Jewry is hence not a confession of religion, but the all-embracing sense of
belonging to a racial community that is bound together by ties of blood
and history and which is determined to keep its national individuality.”7

Polkehn flags the similarities between these ideas and those

of the Fascists. He quotes Alfred Rosenberg, the chief ideologue
of the Nazi party, who wrote:
Zionism must be vigorously supported so that a certain number
of Jews is transported annually to Palestine or at least made to leave the
During those critical years of which Klaus Polkehn writes –
1933-1941 – the so-called Haavara agreement was in effect, which
allowed for the transfer of immense amounts of money from
German Jewish accounts to Palestine. Two companies were
established: the Haavara company in Tel Aviv and a sister
company named Paltreu in Berlin.
Polkehn describes the transaction:
The Jewish emigrant would pay his money into the German
account of Haavara, either at the Wassermann Bank in Berlin or the
Warburg Bank in Hamburg. With this money the Jewish importers could
purchase German goods for export to Palestine, while paying the
equivalent value in Palestinian pounds into the Haavara account at the
Anglo-Palestine Bank in Palestine. When the emigrant arrived in
Palestine he received from this account the equivalent value of the sum he
paid in Germany.9
What was Hitler’s view regarding this magnanimous
transfer of wealth to Palestine? All the indications are that he
approved. Polkehn points out that Herr Hitler decided on 27 Jan
1938 that the Haavara procedure should continue.
Just as President George Bush saw the psychological need
in 1990 to demonize Saddam Huessein of Iraq, FDR also
recognized the value of portraying Adolf Hitler as the devil
incarnate in 1940. The similarities between Hitler and Hussein are
striking in that both were financed and supported by identical
universalist moneychangers.
And for identical reasons, namely to protect the continued
existence and survival of what Chaim Weizmann called Eretz

Israel. In his Speeches and Essays, published in Berlin in 1937,

this noted leader of the Zionist forces stated:
The only dignified answer to all that has been done to the Jews
of Germany is a large and a beautiful and a just home in Eretz Israel – a
strong home.10
The question arises; just what was done to the Jews of
Germany which necessitated transplanting these people to the Land
called Palestine? For a partial answer, we can turn to the writings
of an author, editor and historian, Andrew Gray, who reviewed a
book by the German author, Udo Walendy, Truth for Germany:
The Guilt Question of WW II in the December 1997 edition of “The
Barnes Review.” Gray writes:
When we refer to the bar of history, we are not thinking of Jack
Daniels – at least not immediately. Adolf Hitler and the government of
the Third Reich stand accused of provoking and commencing World War
II. By consensus of establishment historians, and by media propagandists
of virtually every stripe, they have been pronounced guilty.
Is the verdict just? A similar charge was leveled at the Kaiser
and his government for the outbreak of World War I and written into the
Versailles Treaty as supposedly incontestable truth. Thanks in a large
part to Harry Elmer Barnes, this contention was in due course overthrown,
and today, despite the continuing emphasis of anti-German bias in
academia, few serious historians assign the preponderance of war guilt to
the Germans.11
Gray explains that a close examination of the evidence
presented by Walendy “does not convict Hitler of willfully
fomenting the war. In contrast, it demonstrates that the men who
actually wanted war were elsewhere – mainly in London (Lord
Halifax) but also in Washington and represented there by Franklin
Roosevelt himself.”
Gray emphasizes Walendy’s conclusion “which delivers his
strongest indictments of the establishment historians, all of whom
have relied quite heavily on documents that turn out to be either
doctored or entirely fabricated.”12
In an earlier edition of The Barnes Review (May 1997),
best-selling author Gregory Douglas homed in on two of these

establishment historians. Super-sleuth that he is, Douglas went to

the source of the document cited by one of the authors, Dr
Christopher Browning, for his claim in The Path to Genocide,
In the summer of 1941, probably in July, Hitler indicated his
approval for the preparation of a plan for the mass murder of all European
Jews under Nazi control, though just how and when this was
communicated to Himmler and Heydrich cannot be established.13
Douglas wanted to establish the facts behind such a
statement and contacted Dr. Browning, who replied (23 Nov 1994)
that the speech in question was taken from Nuremberg Document
221-L. He explained further that the reference he made to a speech
was not really to a speech but a monologue to a limited audience.
Well! What’s a factual historian to do? Douglas obtained
a copy of Nuremberg Document 221-L and discovered that it was
“neither a speech nor a monologue, but a précis of a high level
conference concerning primarily the administration of newly-
acquired territory in the USSR.”14
Douglas states, “There is not one word in the text of this
conference that refers to Jews or any theoretical plan for their mass
extermination in former Soviet territory or anywhere else.”
Mentioned further by Douglase, was an article in the
German Studies Review by Richard Breitman, in which he refers to
various meetings of top Third Reich leaders with such comments
as: “There is no record of who else (besides Hitler) was present or
exactly what was discussed.” And, “The content of these meetings
of the key authorities on the Final Solution went unrecorded – or at
least no notes of them have survived.”
Breitman states, “To my knowledge, neither Heydrich or
Himmler referred directly to the date of the plans for the Final
Solution or of Hitler’s authorization of it in a form that has reached
Douglas states, “In short, both Browning and Breitman
make the same points, namely that no written proof is extant and

that which appears to be a possible proof is neither conclusive nor

convincing unless enhanced by tenuous support systems that must
be maintained more by wishful thinking than fact.”
Douglas cites the Soviet archives, which contain the
complete file of the German concentration camp system. “These
are not fragmentary records,” Douglas states, “but complete, and
from these, it is apparent that the death toll in all the camps from
their beginnings to the end of the war was approximately
Douglas cites the New York Times (3 Mar 91):
An article on former Soviet archival material addresses the total
figure of 400,000 dead in the camps ‘under the Third Reich’. It
specifically refers to the 70,000 dead in Auschwitz. The actual figures
found on Soviet archival microfilms show a slightly higher figure for
Auschwitz vis 73,000. A response to these totals, astonishing in their
nature, is that no allowance has been made for ‘secret lists’ which, since
they are secret, cannot be found.
It all depends on where you look. Klaus Polkehn, in his
diligent and scholarly search, did find such a secret document. But
it did not specifically mention the “Final Solution” – perhaps
because there has never been a document unearthed to reflect that
any individual, whether a part of the Third Reich or any other such
grouping, ever used the phrase.
The still-classified document that follows uses the phrase
“radical solution of the Jewish question through evacuation.”17
Perhaps the most revealing datum of Polkehn’s research is
that the Irgun faction made an “incredible offer of collaboration” to
Hitler’s Reich a year and a half after the outbreak of WW II. This
Top Secret document, according to the author, is still kept in a
locked archive in Britain. The document (11 Jan 1941) speaks of
“Fundamental Features of the Proposal” by the Irgun Zvai Leumi
(National Military Organization-NMO) “concerning the solution of

the Jewish Question in Europe and the active participation of the

NMO on the side of Germany.”18
Here is the text of that incredible note:
It is often stated in the speeches and utterances of the leading
statesmen of National Socialist Germany that a New Order in Europe
requires as a prerequisite the radical solution of the Jewish question
through evacuation (Judenreines Europa).
The solving of the Jewish problem and thus the liberation of the
Jewish people once and for all is the objective of the political activity and
the years long struggle of the Jewish freedom movement: the National
Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Palestine.
The NMO, which is well acquainted with the goodwill of the
German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity
inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans is of the opinion
1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a
new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true
national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the
2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed
Hebrew nation (volkisch-nationalen-Hebraertum) would be possible.
3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a in
Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military
units would take part in the fighting to conquer Palestine, in case such a
front is formed.
The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the
drawing up of the New Order in Europe, already in its preparatory stage,
would be connected with a positively radical solution of the European
Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national
aspirations of the Jewish people. This national and totalitarian basis and
bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interest of
maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the
Near East.
Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine
offers to take an active part in the war on Germany’s side, provided the
above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish liberation movement
are recognized by the German Reich government.
This offer by the NMO, whose validity extends over the military,
political and information levels, inside and also according to certain

organizational preparations outside Palestine, would be bound to the

military training and organizing of Jewish manpower would strengthen to
an uncommon degree the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of the
entire world.
The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be
in line with one of the recent speeches of the German Reich Chancellor in
which Herr Hitler stressed that any combination and any alliance would
be entered into in order to isolate England and defeat it.19
And the rest, as they say, is history. We witnessed in
earlier chapters what these incredibly gifted people did to the
Russians under Bolshevism and what they did to the Germans
during and after World War II, especially in the conduct of the
Lindemann Plan which called for the destruction by saturation
bombing of German cities and their entire populace; then,
immediately after the war, in the conduct of the fraudulent
Nuremberg Trials – an orgy of murder and endless revenge. We
will analyze this legal fraud in Chapter 7.
Add to those mindless atrocities what we, the victorious
Allies, did in 1945 to the refugees; and to the German soldiers –
over a million of them – that General of the Army Dwight David
Eisenhower kept exposed to the elements in concentration camps,
after the war ended, leaving them to die of pneumonia, dysentery
and hunger. Afterward, they were buried with huge mechanical
shovels. Canada and the Red Cross endeavored to help them, but
Eisenhower said that they were not prisoners of war, but were
“disarmed enemy personnel,” a classification he had created.
As to the Soviets, Ilya Ehrenburg exhorted them officially:
Better than one dead German, are two. Kill them all, men, old
men, children and the women, after you have amused yourselves with
In his profound book, The Psychology of War and the New
Era in 2000, Salvador Borrego reveals startling similarities
between the apparent hatred and utterly evil forces the Allies
unleashed and certain passages from the Old Testament. Borrego
asks some gut-wrenching questions: Was there, in fact, some
likeness to the Old Testament? Was there something of those

watchwords the ancient Jews believed were received from

With this knife thou shalt kill all the males. All their booty thou
shalt take for thyself, and thou shalt eat of the leavings of thine enemies.
The men-servants and the maid-servants thou mayest need shall be of the
nations around you. You shall leave them in heritage to your children
after you, in hereditary possession.
And they killed all the males…the sons of Israel took captive the
women with their children.… Now you shall kill every male among the
children, kill also every woman who may have known a man, but keep for
yourselves all the girl children who have not known a man.22

The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by
every Jewish community and by every single Jew in the world. We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against
Germany… our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of
Vladimir Jabotinsky, Zionist leader, 15 Jan 1934

TO understand fully this secret alliance between the Zionists and

the Nazis, we must read two startling, yet factual, books. One is by
an erudite scholar of Jewish heritage, Edwin Black, who spent five
years on three continents researching and writing The Transfer
Agreement: The Untold Story of the Secret Pact Between the Third
Reich & Jewish Palestine (1984). Dr. Sybil Milton of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center calls it “a spellbinding, exciting book. This
subject has not been previously explored. It adds a significant new
dimension to our understanding of this critical era.”
And so it does. As Yoav Gelber of the Yad Vashem, Israel
Holocaust Memorial, states: “Edwin Black’s research is striking in
its dimension and scope. The vast uncovering of source material
and its extensive use are almost overwhelming. He penetrates deep
into the political and economic processes of inter-Jewish relations
and into gentile attitudes involving the rescue of Jews from Nazi
rule for the benefit of the Zionist enterprise in Eretz Yisrael.”23
The thrust of Black’s voluminous work has to do with the
decision on the part of elements of the Jewish nation to declare war
against Germany in 1933 by a worldwide boycott of all German
goods. The terms of the Transfer Agreement were that the boycott
would cease in return for the transfer of German Jews to the
Palestine. Black reveals the cliffhanger negotiations of the
controversial pact and fleshes out the main characters on both
sides. He also stresses “the anguish of world Jewry over their
choice [to carry out the pact].”24

The chief go-between was Sam Cohen; the chief problem

was the barrier of currency restrictions that seemed to preclude an
orderly transfer of the wealth and the citizens of Germany’s middle
class. These restrictions, which were put in place under Chancellor
Heinrich Bruning, prohibited anyone – Jew or Christian, German
or foreigner – from taking currency out of Germany without
permission. Black states that the restriction was not aimed at Jews,
but at speculators and hoarders.
According to Klaus Polkehn, at the same time, the British,
who controlled Palestine under mandate, limited Jewish entry into
Palestine only to those in possession of at least a thousand pounds
(about $5,000).
Enter, the “facilitator,” one Sam Cohen. Born in Poland in
1890, Cohen traveled to Germany in 1907 to study finance and
economics at the University of Marburg in Germany. During the
Great War, Cohen made a fortune in real estate in Berlin. He
developed a reputation for “philanthropy.” Some looked upon him
as “an evil rogue, interested in no more than his own greed at the
expense of his people; to them, he was a traitor, a collaborator, a
wealthy manipulator, a liar and a fraud.”
Black tells us that others looked upon him as “a munificent
man of the Jewish cultural movement, a man who worked
tirelessly, often selflessly, to help the Jewish people… a committed
Zionist, a rescuer.…”25
In the final analysis, Cohen, although playing a pivotal role
in bringing the agreement to fruition, appeared to be in it for
personal enrichment. Another role-player – Chaim Arlosoroff –
was brought into the small circle of Zionists working to implement
the Transfer Agreement in March 1933. According to Black,
“Arlosoroff was a member of the Jewish Agency Executive
Committee and one of Zionism’s most respected personalities.”
Much of Black’s work is devoted to the almost implacable
struggle between two factions within the Zionist organization.
“The Mapai, or Labor Zionism, considered Palestine as a home for
a Jewish elite that would toil in the noble vocations of manual

work and farming. Their orientation was communal, socialist.

They wanted collective farms and villages. Moreover, Labor
Zionism desired the many, but not the multitudes. Mapai’s Israel
would not be for every Jew – at least not in the beginning.…”26
In opposition were the Revisionist Zionists wanting a
nation of ordinary Jews in a mixed urban-rural society. It would be
based on free enterprise rather than socialism. While the Mapai
envisioned gradual “constructive programs” to build a new Jewish
Homeland, the Revisionists pushed for a rapid transfer of the
largest number of Jews in the shortest time in order to achieve a
quick majority in Palestine and then declare the State. Black says
that Revisionism was very much an updated version of Max
Nordau’s catastrophic Zionism.
Black stresses that Mapai’s battle tactic was “political
warfare,” while the Revisionists “were heavily Fascist and
profoundly influenced by Mussolini.” Vladimir Jabotinsky, the
Revisionist leader, called for a rigid worldwide boycott of German
goods, while the Mapai condemned both the boycott and acts of
terrorism as main planks of the Revisionist platform.
The Transfer Agreement degenerated into a personal feud
between two strong characters, both Zionists; Arlosoroff, who
advocated a bi-national community, and Sam Cohen, who had
masterminded an international economic and political coup,
wherein he would control millions of dollars, thousands of people
and large tracts of land. “One man, working alone could, if
allowed, deliver the Jewish nation to the Jewish homeland. Cohen
could be this private messiah.”
He decided that Arlosoroff was robbing him of his promise
and his profit. Arlosoroff would have to be stopped.
Other factions were after Arlosoroff as well. He was
looked on as an enemy by several factions, not the least
Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Union, several of whose members had
called for Arlosoroff’s assassination as early as 1931. Arab
extremists considered Arlosoroff the most dangerous man in

Palestine. “Not because he sought to conquer. But because he

sought to combine.”
He had created enemies also in Britain. The Mandate
Government saw that the transfer, which they had originally
envisioned as a boon for the British economy leading to extending
their economic sphere of influence over the entire Mideast, would
now lead to that prize going to Germany.
Black does a masterful bit of writing in building up this
story to its ultimate tragedy, the shooting of Arlosoroff on the night
of 16 Jun 1933 as he walked along the beach north of Tel Aviv
with his wife, Sima. He was rushed to hospital where, according to
Black, “the doctors were ill-prepared and indecisive. This being
shabbat, there was no surgeon on duty. Arlosoroff reached the
emergency room at eleven-thirty – about an hour after being shot.
The first surgeon arrived before midnight, but would not operate
until joined by three other specialists still en route. It was too late.
Arlosoroff died in the hospital bed. He was 34.”27
As we saw in Part One, the Transfer Agreement was put
into effect. As Black points out, a nation was waiting. A small
group of men foresaw it all:
That’s why nothing would stop them; no force was too great to
overcome. These men were the creators of Israel. And in order to do so,
each had to touch his hand to the most controversial undertaking in
Jewish history – the Transfer Agreement. It made a state. Was it
madness, or was it genius? 28
He gives us a partial answer in his Afterword, wherein he
asks three questions that have haunted the readers of his
First: Could the boycott really have overturned the Hitler
The second question: By undermining the boycott, are the
Zionists responsible for the Hitler regime’s not being toppled, and by
extension are they responsible for the Holocaust?
The third haunting question is: Was the continuing economic
relationship with Germany an indispensable factor in the creation of the
State of Israel? The answer to that is yes.29


FLASH - New York – “While Russian President Boris Yeltsin and

President Clinton went through the motions of their halting, hollow
and hangdog summit met in Aug 1998 – dubbed the “Boozer and
Abuser Show” by press wags – more important and ominous talks
were going on in the hidden recesses of the Kremlin.”30
This was the lead to a front-page story by Warren Hough
(Spotlight, 21 Sep 1998) which stressed that the outcome of these
super secret negotiations would be the emergency evacuation of up
to a million Jews from Russia to the United States in the event the
former Soviet Union “heartland” is hit by economic collapse and
political turmoil.
Dennis Braham, chairman of the US National Conference
for Soviet Jewry, expects that Russia will be engulfed by a tide of
nationalism, populism and anti-Semitism. “There is tremendous
apprehension that [these] bad things can happen, and we have to be
prepared,” he said.31
Braham was a key member of the visiting delegation to
Moscow, which was headed by the whisky king, Edgar Bronfman,
president of the World Jewish Congress. It included top executives
from nearly all the Zionist groups in the US, as well as high Israeli
officials, such as Nathan Sharansky, the mini-state’s Russian-born
trade and industry minister.
Hough informs us that the home team was headed by
Yevgeny Primakov, the former Soviet secret police chief, who was
selected by Yeltsin as prime minister early in September. Vladimir
Gushinsky, a billionaire Moscow financier, who chairs the Russian
Jewish Congress, was his co-host.
Hough points out that Primakov learned how to deal with
international crises in a lifetime spent mostly as a Communist
secret agent, and that he had cast off his Jewish name (Pincas

Finkelstein) and upbringing early in his career in order to rise to

the top of the old Soviet secret service.
“It is the ethnic identity of the men at the top who have
plundered Russia and plunged it into disarray,” Hough reports.
The most urgent question has to do with the growing rage of the
Russian people at this Jewish community in their midst who are
blamed for the nation’s political chaos, endemic corruption and
economic breakdown.
A most unusual story substantiates this; unusual in that the
Moscow correspondent for the Washington Post, David Hoffman,
reports that the Russians are not looking for the principal culprits
of the country’s misfortunes among their national leaders, but that
the real masters of the former Soviet heartland are the members of
the semibankirshchina – that is, “the regime of the seven banker
Hoffman discovered that these seven oligarchs are in reality
unscrupulous financial speculators, newly minted billionaire
tycoons, united by their ethnic and emotional ties to Israel, who are
the real rulers of post-communist Russia.
Hoffman related that “after staging rigged elections in
Russia in the mid-1990s, the seven tycoons met and decided to
insert one of their own into government. They debated who, and
chose [financier] Vladimir Potanin, who became deputy prime
Hoffman boldly states that, “One reason they chose Potanin
was that he is not Jewish and most of the rest of them are [and
they] feared a backlash against the Jewish bankers.”33
According to Hoffman, the pressures behind the gathering
storm are not hard to understand. These seven bankers corrupted
and manipulated post-communist Russia’s elected government,
“They used their newly found powers to plunder the nation’s
wealth and its natural resources.”34
The seven oligarchs immediately began to undermine
Russia’s national economy by “speculating against the dollar-ruble

exchange rate – often using the government’s own money.” When

they needed hard currency financing, they turned to Wall Street,
where they found a confederate with some of the deepest pockets
in the world’s money markets, billionaire currency speculator
George Soros.
Warren Hough also reports in his twin articles (Spotlight 21
Sep 1998) that these seven oligarchs, threatened by the revolt of
Russia’s defrauded and plundered masses, are being rescued by
such US Zionist leaders as World Jewish Congress president
Bronfman, who is behind the emergency exodus from Russia to the
Such an exodus may take on the trappings of the 1948
Berlin Airlift, but larger and faster, to fly hundreds of thousands of
Russian Jews to safety if law and order break down in the former
Soviet heartland, Hough reports.
The US government will defray the costs of this gigantic
jet-propelled exodus, according to Hough, and will grant ‘“political
asylum” to all Russian Jews who choose to go to America rather
than Israel.
“With regard to the Russian government, the Zionist
negotiators presented four core demands,” Hough writes:
Instant collective, unrestricted exit permits for all Jewish emigrants
cleared to board Bronfman’s emergency airlift;
Open landing and departure clearances, refueling and related airport
services “as needed” for US aircraft participating in the operation;
Open access roads and unhindered passage to and from Russian
airports for the buses, trucks, and vehicles participating in the emergency
evacuation of Jewish refugees; and
Blanket permission for Jewish emigrants to take abroad with them “as
substantial a portion of their assets and savings as may prove compatible
with their departure by air.”35
Hough concludes his lead article with a critical statement
that “no one seems to have thought of asking the opinion – much
less the consent – of ordinary Americans regarding such a sudden
and massive influx of aliens, most of whom will require, beyond

the steep cost of their hasty aerial exodus, billions of dollars in

long-term public assistance.”
In a startling article under the banner “The One-State
Solution” (The New York Times magazine, 10 Jan 1999), Professor
Edward Said, professor of literature at Columbia University,
outlines why the only answer to Middle East peace is Palestinians
and Israelis living as equal citizens under one flag.36 The thought is
– you know – beautiful. Is it practicable… is it possible?
The key word is “reconciliation”; yet, he states that the
Zionist-Israeli official narrative and the Palestinian one are
irreconcilable. So, it becomes a question of which side will give?
He points to a recent book by the distinguished Israeli
historian Zeev Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel, in which
he states:
Even Zionist figures who had never visited the country knew that
it was not devoid of inhabitants.… The real reason for this was not a lack
of understanding of the problem, but a clear recognition of the
insurmountable contradiction between the basic objectives of the two
Said quotes David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli prime
minister, who stated in 1944:
There is no example in history of a people saying we agree to
renounce our country, let another people come and settle here and
outnumber us.38
Yet we saw in previous chapters of Barbarians that the
Palestinians after 1944 were eventually outnumbered and were
driven from their homes and lands by systematic acts of sheer
terror, murder and mayhem. Did they indeed agree to renounce
their country?
Prof. Said answers that question, and provides a wealth of
detail in his article and in his book, Peace and Its Discontents. In
the New York Times article he stresses that following the 1917
Balfour declaration the Palestinian Arabs vastly outnumbered the

Jews, and that they always refused anything that would

compromise their dominance. Even at the time in 1948 when the
Zionists exultantly proclaimed “The state of Israel exists!” (and it
was immediately recognized by Harry S. Truman), the Jews held
only 7% of the land. Prof. Said declares:
The conflict appears intractable because it is a contest over the
same land by two peoples who always believed they had valid title to it
and who hoped that the other side would in time give up or go away. One
side won the war, the other lost, but the contest is alive as ever. We
Palestinians ask why a Jew born in Warsaw or New York has the right to
settle here (according to Israel’s Law of return), whereas we, the people
who lived here for centuries, cannot.39
Prof. Said points to the fact that Israel’s raison d’être as a
state has always been that there should be a separate country, a
refuge, exclusively for Jews. “The effort to separate has occurred
simultaneously and paradoxically with the effort to take more and
more land, which has in turn meant that Israel has acquired more
and more Palestinians. In Israel proper, Palestinians number about
one million, almost 20% of the population.…”
He emphasizes that Zionists in and outside Israel will not
give up on their wish for a separate Jewish state:
The more that current patterns of Israeli settlement and
Palestinian confinement and resistance persist, the less likely it is that
there will be real security for either side.… My generation of
Palestinians, still reeling from the shock of losing everything in 1948, find
it nearly impossible to accept that their homes and farms were taken over
by another people. I see no way of evading the fact that in 1948 one
people displaced another, thereby committing a grave injustice.…40
The good professor emphasizes that “There can be no
reconciliation unless both peoples, two communities of suffering,
resolve that their existence is a secular fact, and that it has to be
dealt with as such.”41
My friends, it will never happen. So the question becomes,
what will happen – not only to the land once called Palestine, but
to the once-Republic of the United States? Both countries were
invaded over time by an alien force.


Two books have emerged from obscurity; one was by a
German Jewish schoolteacher, Dietrich Bronder, Before Hitler
Came; and the other, Adolf Hitler: Founder of Israel, by Henneke
Kardel. Bronder’s book was published in 1964 in Germany. It
was promptly suppressed and is now out of print. Kardel, an
Austrian Jew, who moved to Israel after World War II, published
his book in 1974 in Switzerland.
Both works reflect the fact that Adolf Hitler, as well as the
majority of his top officers and associates, were Jewish. Bronder
includes such notables as Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess,
Reichmarshall Hermann Goering, Dr. Josef Goebbels, Gregor
Strasser, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Heinrich Himmler,
Reichminister von Ribbentrop, SS leader Reinhard Heydrich, and
Hitler’s bankers Ritter von Strauss and von Stein.42
According to Kardel, writing in Adolf Hitler: Founder of
The cooperation which existed between Heydrich’s Gestapo and
the Jewish self-defense league in Palestine, the militant Haganah, would
not have been closer if it was not for Eichmann who made it public…the
commander of Haganah was Feivel Polkes, born in Poland, with whom in
February 1937 the SD troop leader Adolf Eichmann met in Berlin in a
wine restaurant Traube (Grape) near the zoo. These two Jews made a
brotherly agreement. Polkes, the underground fighter, got in writing this
assurance from Eichmann: ‘A body representing Jews in Germany, will
exert pressure on those leaving Germany to emigrate only to Palestine.
Such a policy is in the interest of Germany and will be executed by the
Polkes invited his “brother” Eichmann to their ancestors’
land (Palestine). When Eichmann returned to Germany, he
People of Jewish national circles are very excited about the
radical German politics toward the Jews, as this has increased Jewish
population in Palestine many-fold. In a short time they will become the
majority among the Arabs.44


Most fundamentalists, whether they be Christian, Muslim
or Jewish, look upon God, the Almighty, Allah, Jehovah as a
revengeful deity and one to be feared. The noted Israeli author and
scholar, Israel Shahak, in his most recent work, Jewish
Fundamentalism in Israel, provides startling and rare insights into
the history and practices of fundamentalism, and how it has come
to dominate the politics of that tiny but supremely powerful
country once called Palestine.
We referred to Shahak’s previous works, Jewish History,
Jewish Religion and Open Secrets, in Chapter 11, “Israeli Acts of
Terror an ‘Open Secret.’” Now, in the capstone of his jarring
trilogy, Shahak has teamed up with an American scholar, Prof.
Norton Mezvinsky of Connecticut State University, to examine the
most dangerous strains of Jewish fundamentalism. They place the
assassination of Prime Minister Rabin in the context of what the
authors see as a tradition of historical punishments and killings of
those Jews perceived to be heretics.
Shahak refers to Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, who originally
came to Israel from the United States, and has often expressed his
views in American Jewish publications. In the New York Jewish
Week (26 Apr 1996), Rabbi Ginsburgh spoke freely (during an
interview) of Jews’ genetic-based spiritual superiority over non-
Jews. In the eyes of the Torah, he asserted, it is a superiority that
invests Jewish life with greater value. “If every simple cell in a
Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of
DNA is part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish
DNA,” the learned rabbi declares.45
According to Shahak, if one were to change the words
“Jewish” to “German” or “Aryan” and “non-Jewish” to “Jewish,”
this would turn the Ginsburgh ideology into the doctrine that made
Auschwitz possible.
In discussing the status of non-Jews in the Cabbala (Jewish
mysticism) as compared to that of the Talmud, Shahak points out

that certain Jewish authors “have employed the trick of using

words such as ‘men’, ‘human beings’ and ‘cosmic’ in order to
imply incorrectly that the Cabbala presents a path leading toward
salvation for all human beings.” Shahak states that cabbalistic
texts emphasize salvation only for Jews.46
Shahak singles out a passage from the Halacha (the entire
body of Jewish religious law), taken from the Talmud, which
clearly shows that a non-Jew should be put to death if he kills an
embryo, even if the embryo is non-Jewish, while the Jew should
not be put to death, even if the embryo is Jewish. He stresses that
the above-stated difference in the punishment of a Jew and a non-
Jew for the same crime is common in the Talmud and Halacha.47
Especially revealing is the consideration of differences
between a Jew and a non-Jew as described in Rabbi Yehuda
Amital’s article, “On the Significance of the Yom Kippur War.”
Israeli Prof. Uriel Tal interpreted Amital’s views: the Yom Kippur
War had to be comprehended in its messianic dimension – a
struggle against civilization in its entirety.48
According to Tal, the war was – as are all the Jewish wars –
directed against the “impurity of Western culture.”
Tal stated:
We thus learn that there is only one explanation of the wars; they
refine and purify the soul. As impurity is removed, the soul of Israel – by
virtue of the war – will be refined. We have already conquered the lands;
all that now remains is to conquer impurity.49
Tal also describes the 1967 war as a “metaphysical
transformation” and that the Israeli conquests transferred land from
the power of Satan to the divine sphere. Shahak says that such
transformation supposedly proved that the “messianic era” had
arrived. Prof. Tal emphasized that any Israeli withdrawal from
conquered areas would have “metaphysical consequences which
would restore Satanic sovereignty over the land.”50
During the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, for example,
Shahak explains that the military rabbinate issued a map which

designated Lebanon as land once belonging to the ancient northern

tribes of Israel. The rabbis exhorted the Israeli soldiers to follow in
the footsteps of Joshua and to re-establish his divinely ordained
conquest of the land of Israel, to include extermination of all non-
Jewish inhabitants.51
To illustrate the purity of Israeli conquest of other lands as
“divinely ordained,” Prof. Tal stressed that Israel’s presence in
Lebanon confirmed the validity of the Biblical promise in
Deuteronomy 11:24: "Every place on which the sole of your foot
treads shall be yours; our border shall be from the wilderness, from
the River Euphrates, to the western sea.”52
In this regard, Shahak and Mizvinsky reveal an absolutely
startling fact, based on their in-depth research:
The similarities between the Jewish political messianic trend and
German Nazism are glaring. The gentiles are for the messianists what the
Jews were for the Nazis. The hatred for Western culture with its rational
and democratic elements is common to both movements. Finally, the
extreme chauvinism of the messianists is directed towards all non-Jews.
The 1973 Yom Kippur War, for instance, was in Amital’s view not
directed against Egyptians, Syrians and/or all Arabs but against all non-
Jews. The war was thus directed against the great majority of citizens of
the United States, even though the United States aided Israel in that war.
This hatred of non-Jews is not new but, as already discussed, is derived
from a continuous Jewish cabbalistic tradition. Those Jewish scholars
who have attempted to hide this fact from non-Jews and even from many
Jews have not only done a disservice to scholarship, they have aided the
growth of this Jewish analogue to German Nazism.… This ideology
assumes the imminent coming of the Messiah and asserts that the Jews,
aided by God, will thereafter triumph over the non-Jews and rule over
them forever.53
Shahak also stresses that the idea of redemption through
contact with a spiritually potent personality has been a major theme
common to all strands of Jewish mysticism. The messianic
movement stresses that everything can be redeemed, not only by
following the collective Messiah, but also such material objects as
battle tanks and money if touched or possessed by Jews. This
movement argues that what appears to be confiscation of Arab-
owned land for subsequent settlement by Jews is in reality not an

act of stealing but one of sanctification; that is, redeeming the land
by transfer from the Satanic to the divine sphere.
Further, Dr. Shahak states that the messianic rabbis,
politicians and ideological populizers compare Palestinians to the
ancient Canaanites, whose extermination or expulsion by the
ancient Israelites was, according to the Bible, predestined by a
divine design. He sees this factor as creating great sympathy for
the Israelis among many Christian fundamentalists who anticipate
that the end of the world will be marked by slaughters and
devastation. This led them willingly to support with funds the
Jewish collective messianic takeover of the Middle East. Shahak
writes, “As Jewish fundamentalists who abominate non-Jews, they
forged a spiritual alliance with Christians who believe that
supporting Jewish fundamentalism is necessary to support the
second coming of Jesus.”54
Continuing, Shahak quotes Rabbi Zalman Melamed,
chairman of the Committee of the Rabbis of Judea, Samaria and
Gaza: “No rabbinical authority disputes that it would be ideal if the
land of Israel were inhabited by only Jews.” This argument was
extended to Muslims and Christians by Rabbi Shlomo Min-Hahar,
who claimed: “The entire Muslim world is money-grubbing,
despicable and capable of anything. All Christians without
exception hate the Jews and look forward to their deaths.”55
In contrast, Shahak singles out a book, Intifada Responses,
written by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner in 1990, which provides plain
Hebrew halachic answers to the questions of what pious Jews
should do to Palestinians during situations that arise at times
similar to the Intifada. The book cautions those not conversant
with the Halacha not to compare Jewish and gentile under-age
minors. “As is known, no halachic punishments can be inflicted
upon Jewish boys below the age of thirteen and Jewish girls below
the age of twelve.… Maimonides (the greatest medieval Jewish
philosopher) wrote that this rule applied to Jews alone… not to any
non-Jews. Therefore, any non-Jews, no matter what their age, will
have to pay for any crime committed.

Aviner explained that if a non-Jewish child intended to

commit murder, for example, by throwing a stone at a passing car,
that the non-Jewish child should be considered a ‘persecutor of the
Jews’ and should be killed. He asks the question: “Does the
Halacha permit inflicting the death penalty upon Arabs who throw
stones?” His answer was that inflicting such a punishment is not
only permitted but mandatory.56
What Israel Shahak reveals so clearly in all of his erudite
works is that the leaders of this tiny Jewish principality,
transplanted by conquest and terror into the midst of a sea of Arabs
and other “foreigners,” use the diobolical teachings of the Talmud
and the Halacha so to control its fundamentalist followers that they
will willingly go forth to slaughter other peoples and steal their
lands in the belief that they are doing God’s divinely ordained will.
By removing those lands from the control of Satan and placing
them under the protection of Jewish benevolence, they “sanctify
Shahak states that during the time of the state’s creation,
the number of non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel was relatively small.
“The Israeli government induced Jewish immigration from Iraq by
bribing the government of Iraq to strip most Iraqi Jews of their
citizenship and to confiscate their property.”58
As we saw earlier, in order to obtain the necessary
“refugees” from other lands to populate Palestine, secret deals were
struck with Hitler’s minions, and the sympathy factor was
cunningly manipulated to obtain tacit financial and moral support
of the gullible goyim.
How can we escape from the death grip of the “clammy
hand of communism,” as Churchill phrased it? How can we defeat
this barbarian horde of Bolshevists who have swept onto our
shores and have infiltrated and subverted our government, our
courts, our financial institutions, and monetary system, as well as
our very way of life? How can we stop this mad march to global
despotism? Consider the protocol delivered by Henry Kissenger as

the grand finale address at the Bilderberger meeting at Evian,

France, 21 May 1992:
Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los
Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is
especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond,
whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then
that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver
them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown.
When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly
relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their
world government.59
Before we address these highly pertinent questions, we
must consider the distinct possibility of a coup d’etat being carried
out here in the United States. Is it possible for a tyrant occupying
the office of the president to declare martial law, thus pulling a
defacto coup? Or, conversely, is it possible for a dedicated military
force, under a modern-day Gideon, to rise up and pry the critical
levers of power loose from those clammy hands of our modern-day
Bolshevists, the Barbarians Within the Gates.
(Creating ex-post-facto Law)

The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic

conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years
to establish.
Prof. Milton R. Konvitz, NYU, Jan 1946


T HERE were several momentous gatherings toward the end of

World War II and immediately thereafter…Yalta, Potsdam,
San Francisco, Bretton Woods, Nuremberg. Each of them was a
staged and manipulated “event,” each related to the others, much
like acts or scenes in a play. Each of them separately and all of
them collectively had the ultimate goal of establishing a one-world
despotic dictatorship under a United Nations.
Let’s look more closely at the Nuremberg Trials, especially
at the main event which extended from 20 November 1945 until
the Purim Fest of 16 October 1946… the Grand Finale.
Let’s first consider the setting for these trials, that of
Nuremberg, once a proud and historic city of 450,000 residents. In
his highly readable book, Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial (1994),
Joseph E Persico sets the scene by describing the transformation of
the “treasure chest of the kingdom” that “chilled Justice Jackson”
(chief US prosecutor, Robert Jackson) when he first arrived in July
1945. He and “Wild Bill” Donovan, head of the OSS, traveled in a
C-47 Dakota aircraft over the rubble that had once been Germany.
They met with General Lucius Clay, Ike’s deputy. Donovan noted
that the Russians would insist on Berlin for the trial, but Clay said

that the army could not find housing for the trial staff in that
shattered city. Clay had a better alternative. They reboarded the
Dakota transport. Persico reports:
Jackson dozed off briefly, only to be awakened by Clay pointing
earthward. That was it, the general said. Jackson gazed out the starboard
window. He had seen the bomb damage in London, the ruins of Frankfurt
and Munich. But nothing had prepared him for the urban corpse below.
Where were they? He asked. Where Jackson would likely find his
courthouse, Clay said. That was Nuremberg.1
In two days of saturation bombing by over 2,000 Flying
Fortresses on 18-19 February 1945, over 20,000 high explosives
and incendiaries were rained down on the hapless city. This was
the culmination of the top secret Lindemann Plan, which was
implemented by Churchill in 1942. Between October 1943 and the
February 1945 raid, Nuremberg had been bombed 11 times, mostly
by the Royal Air Force at night.
As in the case of the Dresden destruction, also in February
1945, Nuremberg was 90% destroyed, and of the original
population of 450,000, only 130,000 were still alive at war’s end.
Persico informs us that the Americans declared Nuremberg
“among the dead cities of the European continent.” Yet, Persico
writes, “there survived on its western edge, a huge frowning
structure, the Justigehaude, the Palace of Justice: the courthouse of
the government of Bavaria.”
It was here in that very Palace of Justice that “victor’s
justice” would prevail, leading to the sentencing of 11 Germans to
death by hanging for “crimes against humanity.”
For still another view of “victor’s justice,” let’s turn to
another great historian – called “America’s intellectual giant” by
his peers – Harry Elmer Barnes. Writing in Barnes Against the
Blackout, he quotes a highly literate World War II veteran, Edgar L
Jones, writing in the Atlantic Monthly (Feb 1946):
We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy
civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities,
thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous mass slaughter.2

According to Barnes:
Two great wrongs don’t make a right. Hitler’s evil deeds have
been told and retold, beginning long before 1939. After the Cold War
started the Western World began to learn something about the monstrous
and nefarious doings of Stalin – that ‘man of massive outstanding
personality, and deep and cool wisdom,’ as Churchill described him –
which far exceeded those of Hitler. But we have heard little of the
horrors which were due to the acts and policies of Churchill and
Roosevelt, such as the saturation bombing of civilians, the atom bombing
of the Japanese cities (planned by Roosevelt), the expulsion of about 15
million Germans from their former homes and the death of four to six
million in the process, and the cruel and barbarous treatment of Germany
from 1945 to 1948. The greatest horror that could be fairly traced to their
doings is still held in reserve for us – the nuclear extermination of


Nuremberg: The Last Battle by the British writer, David
Irving (1998) sheds new light and insight on many of the aspects of
the Nuremberg Trial. Irving uncovered long-suppressed facts from
private diaries and letters from prosecutors and judges, defendants
and witnesses. He shows that the Allies who sat in judgment were
themselves guilty of many of the crimes for which the German
defendants were tried and hanged. He also exposes the Tribunal’s
double standard, with the Allies acting as judge, prosecution, jury
and executioner. He also reveals how Aushwitz commandant Hoes
and other Germans were tortured to produce phony “evidence” that
is still widely accepted as fact. He details the invention of the oft-
repeated hoax of “six million” victims of the “holocaust.”
Irving reveals particularly the views of the chief American
prosecutor, Robert H Jackson. Initially enthusiastic about his role
as an architect of international law, his enthusiasm waned even
before the opening session of the International Military Tribunal
(IMT). Irving reports that Jackson told his superiors back in
Washington DC:
If we want to shoot Germans as a matter of policy, let it be done
as such, but don’t hide the deed behind a court. If you are determined to

execute a man in any case, there is no occasion for a trial; the world yields
no respect to courts that are merely organized to convict.4
We should also consider the Nuremberg Trials in light of
the views of learned judges, high-ranking military officers and
university professors. Irving reports that it was US Supreme Court
Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone who in 1945 called the
Nuremberg trials a fraud:
[Chief US Prosecutor Robert] Jackson is away conducting his
high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to
the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and
proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a
fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas. 5
Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas
charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for
principle” at Nuremberg. He later wrote:
I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg Trials
were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and
clamor of the time.”6
As the first trial – the main show – dragged on
interminably, Justice Hugo Black ridiculed the IMT, calling it a
“serious failure,” and placed the blame for that failure on his
colleague, Robert Jackson.7
Actually, it was in all respects a political show trial
fashioned after those of Soviet Russia, as explained by Professor
Richard Pipes of Harvard in his outstanding book Russia Under the
Bolshevik Regime. Pipes states that:
[T]he Bolsheviks established the original show trial – carefully
staged proceedings in which the verdict was preordained and whose
objective it was to humiliate the defendants, and, by their example, to
intimidate those who sympathized with their cause.8
These elaborate show trials were later mimicked by the
IMT at Nuremberg, and still later by the Communists in Red
China. And all were designed to further the cause of the
Universalists to set up a despotic one-world socialist government.
Today, that sanctimonious fraud continues at the international
court in The Hague under the aegis of the United Nations.


Patrick J. Buchanan, in a syndicated column (2 Jul 1998)
considers that in Rome delegates from 156 nations are creating an
International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute the soldiers and
leaders of any nation it finds guilty of “crimes against humanity,”
including our own. “Like the monster of the Frankenstein films,
the United Nations has begun to assert a power and authority above
that of its creators.”9
Buchanan writes, “Sensing victory, UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan is exploiting our isolation at Rome to coerce us to
accept his enlarged vision of an ICC or feel the lash of world
opinion. ‘No one country,’ he says, ‘will want to be responsible
for the failure of the conference.’
“We want a ‘court with teeth’,” he writes in London’s
Financial Times, “where acting under orders is no defense and…
all individuals in a government hierarchy or military chain of
command, without exception, from rulers to private soldiers, must
answer for their actions… our own century has seen the invention
and use of weapons of mass destruction.…”
“Now,” Buchanan writes, “since the greatest such weapon
of mass destruction ever invented and used was the atomic bomb at
Hiroshima, one wonders if Annan believes that General George
Marshall and President Harry Truman should have been put in an
ICC dock.”
Buchanan stresses that “the goal is power – the transfer of
power from this republic to international bureaucrats.” Buchanan
points out that “without an army of its own, the ICC is going to
have to rely on the most powerful UN nation to arrest the war
criminals it alone decides to prosecute. And guess who that is.”
Buchanan winds up his sharp rebuke of the Global Monster
taking shape in Rome by stating that Congress should pass a joint
resolution that the United States will not assist an ICC created
against our wishes, will not fund it, will not permit it to operate on
US territory, and will work for its early dissolution.

“We do not need any more institutions that trample on our

national sovereignty.”10
The presiding chief judge for the USSR, I. T. Nikitchenko,
explained the Soviet view before the Tribunal convened:
We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have
already been convicted and whose conviction has already been announced
by both Moscow and Crimea (Yalta) declarations by the heads of the
(Allied) governments… The whole idea is to secure quick and just
punishment for the crime.11
Both the chief Soviet prosecutor, Lt Gen Roman Rudenko,
and Nikitchenko, were Soviet Bolsheviks. Rudenko would later
prosecute the US pilot of the U-2 spy plane, Gary Powers.12
The greatest problem they faced, according to Jackson, was
to overcome criticism that they were creating ex post facto law.
Nullum crimen et nulla poena sine lege, the ancient Romans had
said: “no crime and no punishment without law.” Related to that
problem was another, as explained by the British prosecutor, Sir
David Maxwell-Fyfe. Irving reveals that he brought up another
Latin expression, tu quoque, the “so-did-you” defense.
If the crimes they were defining applied only to Germans,
how would they escape history’s verdict that the trial was not
justice but merely victors’ vengeance? Atrocities had been
committed on all sides. Further, they were planning to prosecute
aggression as a war crime. Yet sitting in judgment would be
Russians, whose nation had invaded Finland in 1940 and grabbed a
chunk of Poland under its 1939 pact with the Nazis.13
In sharp contrast to his public utterances, the Chief US
prosecutor, Robert Jackson, privately acknowledged in a letter to
President Truman:
[The Allies] have done or are doing some of the very things we
are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva
Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our
command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in
France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We

say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty
over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.14


Historian David Irving highlights this fact in Nuremberg:
The Last Battle. He relates that in June 1945, Jackson met in New
York with representatives of “several powerful Jewish
organizations.” One of them told Jackson that six million Jews
had been “lost” during the war and that he had arrived at this figure
by extrapolation. Irving states that “in other words his figure was
somewhere between a hopeful estimate and an educated guess.”
Irving further noted that the six-million figure had been cited 26
years earlier in a leading Jewish-American periodical. Irving
In a 1919 essay by a former governor of New York (Martin
Glynn), readers were told that ‘6 million Jews are dying in a threatened
holocaust of human life’ as victims of ‘the awful tyranny of war and a
bigoted lust for Jewish blood’.15
Such blatant propaganda was designed to excite the
sympathy factor, and as a cover for the ongoing rape of Russia
1917-1924 by eastern European émigrés. Coupled with such intent
was the implementation of the Balfour Declaration concerning a
Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Such deception became the driving force for a future drama
staged by the US, Britain, France and the USSR (the United
Nations) before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal which played for
five years (1945-49) and was written by a great “playwright,”
lawyer and avowed Zionist, Murray Bernays. We will shortly
discover how this attorney from New York capitalized on this bit
of artful deception to create the fraud known as the Nuremberg
Trials during World War II.
In October 1944 the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a
program dealing with war crimes. It had been drawn up by the
Judge Advocate General of the US Army. At the same time, a War

Crimes Branch was established in the office of the Judge Advocate

General (JAG). Gen John Ware, assisted by Colonel Melvin
Purvis, was to handle all matters related to war crimes for the
Departments of War, Navy and State. The approved program was
traditional in nature, in that war crimes were based on the accepted
laws of war in the field; i.e., a belligerent may try enemy soldiers
for the same offenses for which he would try his own troops.
Alas, somebody else was in charge.
It was Samuel Rosenmann, speechwriter and confidant of
FDR, who lined up Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Robert
H. Jackson, for the top job of presiding over the Nuremberg Trials.
Rosenmann had just returned from an unofficial meeting in
England with the British prime minister when FDR died. Because
both Rosenmann and Baruch had been wired into the White House
loop early on, and because the hapless Harry Truman, as V.P., had
been definitely out of the loop, it was a cinch for Rosenmann to
convince the new President that Bob Jackson was the man for the
In January 1945, Rosenmann met with Secretary of War
Henry L. Stimson and Attorney General Francis Biddle. The thrust
of the meeting had to do with meting out proper punishment for the
“war criminals” already convicted. It was a stacked deck from the
beginning. Attorney General Biddle, who later served as a judge at
the Trials, gave FDR the following advice for use at the coming
Yalta confab: “The German leaders are well known and the proof
of their guilt will not offer great difficulties.”16
Bernays, an avowed Zionist, graduated from Harvard in
1915 and became a New York lawyer. He was granted a
commission in the Army in 1942 and spent the war in a small
office on the third floor of the War Department Building on
Pennsylvania Avenue (near the White House). He devoted his
entire time to preparing plans for the trials of German “war
criminals.” He joined Jackson in London in June 1945. From his

prior work of nearly three years emerged the final plan for the
conduct of the trials. The key to this staged docu-drama was the
earlier propaganda ploy emerging from World War One, having to
do with the “holocaust of the six million.” Bernays enlarged on
this aspect, as well as on the Biblical Book of Esther.
Murray Bernays came to America with his Lithuanian
Jewish parents in 1900, when he was six years old. He graduated
from Harvard and the Columbia Law School, then joined the New
York law firm of Morris Ernst. Along the way, he married Hertha
Bernays, a niece of Sigmund Freud, and changed his name from
Morris Lipstitch to Murray Bernays – certainly a compliment to his
lovely wife.
Perhaps more important than his heritage was the detail of
Bernays’ plan and how the judges of the four countries involved in
the IMT carried it out to the letter… even to the point of sentencing
11 – and only 11 – to be executed by hanging.
One of the first to view Bernays’s “top secret” handiwork
was Herbert Wechsler, who worked for Attorney General Francis
“What was this conspiracy nonsense?” Wechsler asked.
“And defining acts as criminal after they had been committed?
That was ex post facto law, bastard law. And declaring that whole
organizations – some of whose members numbered in the hundreds
of thousands, some in millions – were criminal? This meat-ax
approach was fraught with potential for injustices.”17
Wechsler would serve as Biddle’s legal advisor at the
Trials. Jackson was so impressed by Bernays and his plan for the
conduct of the trials that he hired him as his executive officer –
“his right arm,” Persico tells us. He also explains in his chapter,
“Prelude to Judgment,” how the delegates from the four allied
countries who would try the German “war criminals” got around
the business of ex post facto law.
“On August 8, roughly six weeks after the allied
representatives had first assembled at Church House (London),

they were ready to sign an agreement to try war criminals in an

international court. The document defined the crimes, the structure
of the court, the procedures and punishments. But what to name
the new instrument? Nomenclature had been tricky. To call it a
law, a statute, a code, would brand it, at the outset, as ex post facto.
And so a neutral term, charter, was settled on: the Charter of the
International Military Tribunal.”18
Murray Bernays authored the Nuremberg Trial’s charter
which defined four crimes: 1) conspiracy to carry out aggressive
war, 2) the actual launching of aggression; 3) killing, destroying,
and plundering during a war not justified by military necessity; and
4) crimes against humanity, including atrocities against civilians,
most flagrantly the attempt to exterminate the Jews.
Most haunting regarding the main event of the farcical
Nuremberg Trials was the scheduled hanging of 11 “war criminals”
on the Jewish Purim Fest. This was the grand finale of the script
prepared by the great playwright and Biblical scholar, Murray
The first scenario dragged on from March 1946 until that
fated day – Purim Fest on 16 October – when just after the stroke
of midnight, 11 (mark well the number) already sentenced by the
four “impartial” judges of the IMT for execution by hanging, were
unceremoniously dragged from their beds and escorted to the
gymnasium, where Master Sergeant John Woods, Third US
Army’s official hangman, had constructed three gallows.
Why 11? Because that number was preordained in
Bernays’ grand design as the frosting on the cake, so to speak. One
must read the Book of Esther to understand the implications fully,
as many did when Dr. Baruch Goldstein went on a killing rampage
in Hebron, Israel, murdering over 30 Arabs as they knelt in prayer.
Only by going back to the basics of this philosophy of utter
destruction (to be followed by “a day of feasting and gladness”
which came to be called Purim) will we begin to understand the

rationality of the massacre in the mosque. It was but one more act
of endless revenge, carried out in accordance with Talmudic law
and justice. Carried out with appropriate celebrations on Purim
In the Book of Esther, King Ahasuerus, urged on by his
favorite concubine, Esther, and her uncle, Mordecai, hanged
Haman and his ten sons:
The Jews gathered themselves together in the cities throughout
all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought
their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell
upon all the people… and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand.19
Related to the dissimulations emerging from World War
One and the effort, especially on the part of Britain, to discredit the
Germans was the business of “gassing innocents.” Bernays would
twist an earlier and cruder propaganda ploy – to prove that all
Germans were barbarians – concerning the supposed gassing of
innocents. (See the London Times for 8 March 1917, which
asserted that the Germans had gassed 700,000 Serbian civilians.)
This hoax was resurrected 25 years later and appeared in the
underground Bund report (25 May 1942) from the Warsaw Ghetto
that “the Nazis have already exterminated 700,000 Polish Jews.”20
This lie became the trigger for the “extermination of six
million Jews” by the Nazis, first by burning in fiery pits, then by
steaming to death in showers and finally by “gassing.” Such is the
nature of propaganda, especially when one controls a complicit
press, that even today, two-thirds of the people polled still accept
the “holocaust of six million” as fact.
Meaning that a third do not.
Jean-Francois Revel explains just how such dissimulation
works in How Democracies Perish:
It is an occupational habit for actors on the political stage to
distort the truth, for reasons and in ways that vary with the nature of the
power they hold. Autocrats, in direct control of all means of
communication and expression, disguise the present and rewrite the
past… in free societies the past is sometimes misrepresented, not as in
slave societies, by crude state censorship and lies, but suavely, through

legitimate persuasion and the free propagation of an adulterated or

entirely bogus version of an event. With repetition, this version joins the
body of accepted ideas, those the masses believe; it acquires the status of
truth, so firmly that hardly anyone thinks of checking the original facts for

The Nuremberg Trials have made the waging of unsuccessful

war a crime: the generals on the defeated side are tried and then
Field Marshal B. L. Montgomery, 9 Jun 1948

THE trial opened at Nuremberg on 20 Nov 1945. It was a done

deal before it started. The Judge Advocate General (JAG), Maj
Gen Myron Kramer, was in league with Justice Jackson from the
start. The JAG’s War Crimes Branch took over the screening and
selection of prosecution and defense lawyers.
The “big trial” conducted by the International Military
Tribunal at Nuremberg ran from March until October 1946. It
resulted in three acquittals (one of them, Hjalmar Schacht), seven
prison sentences and 11 death sentences, which were immediately
carried out by hanging (with the exception of Goering, who
swallowed a potassium cyanide capsule).
The strangest prison sentence was meted out to Rudolph
Hess by the tribunal in absentia. Hess, who had flown a fighter to
Scotland early in the war, had surrendered to the British, and had
proposed a plan whereby the Germans and the British would team
up to defeat Joseph Stalin and prevent the spread of Communism
throughout Europe. Because the spread of socialism worldwide
was one of the reasons for fighting World War II, one can
understand in retrospect why Hess was placed in isolation and
solitary confinement – the only prisoner in Spandau – for the rest
of his natural life.
And Hjalmar Schacht (Hajim Schachtl), the man behind
Hitler, the man behind the international financial chaos of the
1920s and ’30s, went free.

Bear in mind that of the 21 men in the dock at Nuremberg,

only 11 were preordained to be sentenced to death by hanging.
This in fact was known ahead of time by the four judges of the
IMT and their alternates, as well as by others, particularly by the
US military officers in attendance.
They too had read Murray Bernays’s top secret script.
From 1946 to 1949, a series of twelve less important trials
were staged by the US before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal.
These trials in the main were politically instigated. There have
been many books printed regarding them, one being Professor
Arthur Butz’s Hoax of the Twentieth Century. However, the
statement by one of the American presiding judges, Charles F.
Wennerstrum, sums it up:
If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would
never have come here.… The high ideals announced as the motives for
creating these tribunals has not been evident.… The entire atmosphere
here is unwholesome.… The trials were to have convinced the Germans
of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that
their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors… abhorrent to the
American sense of justice is the prosecution’s reliance on self-
incriminating statements made by the defendants while prisoners for more
than 21/2 years, and repeated interrogation without presence of
counsel…the lack of appeal leaves me with a feeling that justice has been
Professor Butz reports:
These trials were supervised by the War Crimes Branch. They
were perhaps the most shameful episodes in US history.23
He explains that the entire repertoire of third degree
methods was employed, with beatings and brutal kicking, to the
point of ruining testicles in 137 cases, knocking out teeth,
starvation, solitary confinement, torture with burning splinters, and
impersonation of priests in order to encourage prisoners to

One notable incident occurred when investigator Joseph

Kirschbaum brought a certain Einstein into court to testify that the
accused Menzel had murdered Einstein’s brother. When the
accused was able to point out that the brother was not only alive
and well, but was sitting in the court, Kirschbaum was deeply
embarrassed and scolded Einstein: “How can we bring this pig to
the gallows, if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into
The US Army authorities admitted to some of the charges.
When the chief of the Dachau War Crimes Branch, Colonel A. H.
Rosenfeld, quit his post in 1948, he was asked by reporters if there
was any truth to the stories of mock trials at which sham death
sentences had been passed, he replied, “Yes, of course. We
couldn’t have made these birds talk otherwise.… It was a trick and
it worked like a charm.”
The makeup of the War Crimes Branch was essentially
Jewish. It was headed by Colonel David “Mickey” Marcus after
Judge Samuel Rosenmann had been picked by Truman to oversee
the trials of German war criminals. Marcus remained the chief of
the War Crimes Branch until April 1947, when he left the Army
and went into private law practice.
There is an interesting sequel to Mickey Marcus. It
emerges from an AP story, 12 Jun 1948, that a “Mickey Stone” had
been killed in action while serving as supreme commander in the
Jerusalem sector in the Jewish-Arab war for the control of
Palestine. He was adulated in the New York Times, with all of his
accomplishments listed, not as Mickey Stone, but as David
Marcus. Strangely, his service as head of the War Crimes Branch
during the Nuremberg trials was omitted. So was the fact that he
was not killed in action in some bloody engagement in Palestine,
but was shot by one of his sentries as he made a late-night foray to
the latrine.25

In 1946 Capt B. H. Liddell Hart’s book The Evolution of

Warfare was published in London. He stated that victory had been
achieved by “practicing the most uncivilized means of warfare that
the world had known since the Mongol devastations.” He included
not only the terror bombings of German civilians, but the
deliberate murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens by
nuclear extermination at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945,
as well as the setting up of the system of “war-crimes trials.”26
In his classic Advance to Barbarism (1948), Frederick J. P.
Veale detailed “the development of Total Warfare from Sarajevo to
It cannot be denied that this particular reversion to Barbarism
was accepted by the public with astonishingly few misgivings.27
Another book outstanding for what it portrays, viz.
“justice,” or the lack thereof, was Epitaph at Nuremberg by
Montgomery Belgion, first published in 1946, then updated and
republished in 1949 by the Henry Regnery Company in the United
States under the title Victors’ Justice.
By examining the novel method of disposing of war
prisoners agreed upon at Yalta, Belgion determined that “the
Nuremberg Trials were not inspired by any overwhelming passion
for justice and by a righteous determination that crime should not
escape punishment.” In essence, he pointed out, “a trial is a means
by which an existing law is enforced, and that at Nuremberg there
was no existing law to enforce… the Hands may have been the
hands of Justice, but the Voice was Propaganda’s voice.”
Further, he traces it back to World War I and to Article 231
of the Treaty of Versailles, which declared Germany solely guilty
for the First World War, but had neither moral weight nor judicial
validity. And so the victors of the Second World War decided to
hold trials of the vanquished that would, they hoped, conclusively
establish for all time Germany’s guilt.

That, he submitted, was the real object of the Nuremberg

Trial: “It was a gigantic ‘put up show,’ a gigantic piece of
The Trial was decked out to look like an authentic judicial
process; the victors showed a really astonishing contempt for
justice and a really pathetic faith in sophistry. Veale singles out, in
addition to the mass murders committed under the saturation
bombing of German cities, the mass-deportations of populations
totaling over 14 million and entailing indescribable misery. It was
sanctioned by Gen Eisenhower under “Operation Keel Haul.”29
In most cases these deportations followed wholesale mass-
murder carried out in the homelands of the populations condemned
to deportation. Not only had Ike had a hand in this, but Gen. Bill
Donovan as well. Donovan headed the Office of Strategic Services
(OSS) which would later become the CIA. Irving reveals their
It soon became clear that the OSS had intended all along to
manage the whole trial along the lines of the NKVD [Soviet] show-trial…
they proposed to run a pre-trial propaganda campaign in the US, with
‘increasing emphasis on the publication of atrocity stories to keep the
public in the proper frame of mind.30
As regards the Nuremberg Trials, Veale states that: “It is
perhaps hardly necessary to comment on the fundamental injustice
of inventing ad hoc law and then bringing charges alleging acts in
breach of this law committed before the law existed.”
In the United States this injustice was widely recognized.
Irving brings this out clearly in his book; he quotes US Secretary of
War Henry Stimson:
I found around me, particularly in Morgenthau [Secretary of the
Treasury], a very bitter atmosphere of personal resentment against the
entire German people without regard to individual guilt, and I am very
much afraid that it will result in our taking mass vengeance on the part of
our people.… I cannot believe that he [Roosevelt] will follow
Morgenthau’s views. If he does, it will certainly be a disaster.… The

President appoints a committee and then goes off to Quebec with the man
[Morgenthau] who really represents the minority and is so biased by his
Semitic grievances that he is really a very dangerous advisor.…31
As the leading Republican Senator, Robert A. Taft, a
politician respected by all parties, pointed out:
It is completely alien to the American tradition of law to
prosecute men for criminal acts which were not declared to be so until
long after the fact. The Nuremberg Trials will forever remain a blot on
the escutcheon of American jurisprudence.32


Veale is at his very best describing not only the
fundamental injustice of the Trials, but the actual stupidity of the
major participants in the prosecution of what came to be called
“Crimes against peace” and “Crimes against humanity.”
Of course, it was a sort of stupidity clever in its cunning. It
trickled out, over an inordinate time, in the wellspring of
regurgitation flowing forth from “The London Agreement,” which
in fact was the formulation of ex post facto or bastard law.
The London Agreement was a pact drawn up, in London of
course, between and among the British, French, Russian and
American Governments in 1945 for the trial of “the major war
criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical
No definition of “major war criminals” was ever given,
except that each participant in the farce reserved the right to try,
according to its own laws, any war criminal in its hands for
offenses committed on its own territory.
Veale explains that attached to the Agreement was a sort of
schedule “grandiloquently labeled ‘the Charter,’ which purported
to define the powers of the Tribunal and the procedure which it
was to adopt.”34
Unsaid by Veale is that the common thread throughout the
London Agreement and subsequent trial of “war criminals” was the

law of the Babylonian Talmud as interpreted by that great legal

scholar, Murray Bernays. The setting up of the London Agreement
coincides with his arrival on the scene from his War Department
office in Washington, DC, at the behest of that great criminologist,
Robert J. Jackson.
An important part of the Agreement is contained in Article
6 of the Charter (actually composed by Bernays). It is as much a
fraud as the United Nations Charter, and cunningly concocted by
the same group of Zionists and their pawns. As Veale explains, it
purports to create two new crimes against international law:
“Crimes against peace” are defined as “planning or waging a war
of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties. Crimes
against humanity” are defined as “inhuman acts against any
civilian population before or during the war and persecutions on
political, racial or religious grounds.”
Veale further states:
With regard to the first of these novel creations, the framers of
the Charter had abandoned in despair a desperate attempt to define ‘a war
of aggression’ without implicitly condemning Russia for her numerous
unprovoked attacks on her neighbors. The chiefs of state at the Yalta
Conference had cheerfully convicted their captured enemies of having
plotted and waged a war of aggression, and set the framers of the Charter
the utterly impossible task of defining this alleged offense. Of course, they
As we saw earlier, it was equally impossible to define the
second novel crime at the same time as the victors were engaged in
mass deportations of 14 million people, coupled with mass murder
in their homelands. Add to this the saturation and terror bombing
of German cities under the Lindemann Plan, and the scheme to
convert Germany to a goat pasture – the Morgenthau Plan – which,
if carried out, would have destroyed another 14 million Germans.
Considering the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, along with
the finale of dropping the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, one can begin to understand that such crimes as defined
under Article 6 applied only to the losers and therefore needed no
definition, as it was the victors who not only created these new

laws (after the fact), but interpreted them in a fraudulent court of

law and meted out unjust punishment in direct violation of the
Geneva Convention.
This is truly victors’ justice writ large. In fact, it is
Talmudic revenge. It is being practiced assiduously today under
UN auspices, and controlled by the coterie of modern-day
Bolsheviks who are bent on establishing international law as the
Law of the Land. By using US forces to capture alleged war
criminals (already convicted) in Bosnia and carting them off to a
UN tribunal of “justice” in The Hague, they are following once
more the script of Murray Bernays and the perfidious London
Lastly, a personal reflection as we close our inspection of
the fraudulent Nuremberg Trials and prepare to examine current
and ongoing frauds of a similar nature in the tiny theocratic state of
This author recently renewed his acquaintance with a
former boss in the military. He was a lawyer by education and
profession, and would become a federal judge: he is now retired.
We met for dinner, which extended into the wee hours in a
discussion of the Nuremberg Trials, for he was there and
participated as a young captain seconded from his Civil Affairs and
Military Government unit to serve in the War Crimes Branch.
His studied opinion, based on 50 years of reflection, was
that the Nuremberg Trials were fraudulent, were based on hate and
vengefulness; and perhaps most important, are continuing today
under the aegis of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) of the
Justice Department. In answer to the question, was there justice at
Nuremberg, he said, “no, only revenge, for the war crimes trials of
the ’40s, as well as the ongoing witchhunt for ‘hidden Nazis’ are
based on hate and revenge … forever.”
Was this learned judge and former military officer perhaps
prejudiced, or mistaken in his belief, his views but an aberration?

The 25th Infantry Division commander in Korea was a

tough old soldier, later a three-star general, Samuel T. Williams.
We called him (behind his back) “Hangin’ Sam.” He was brave
and gruff and demanding; we feared and respected him, but
admired him too. Later, after he retired, he and I became good
“Hangin’ Sam” earned his sobriquet at the Nuremberg
Trials. He was one of the judges, and his response when the judges
debated the sentencing was invariably “hang ’em.” There was
nothing personal about it, he reminisced. He knew what was
expected of him, as “the Jews were in charge of the trials and it
was the blood libel of the Jews.… They were getting even for
2,000 years of persecution.”
One of General Williams’ last tours before retirement had
been as the senior military advisor for the US Army in Saigon after
the fall of Dien Ben Phu and the defeat of the French in 1954. He
had warned President Eisenhower not to get involved “in another
rice paddy war” in the Far East and apparently Ike had heeded his
advice, for we didn’t venture into that “shit pit,” as Williams called
it, until after the John F. Kennedy assassination and the advent of
LBJ’s Great Society.
Following the October 1973 Yom Kippur War in the
Middle East, we shared a dinner and conversation with the hero of
the Battle of St. Vith in World War II, General Bruce C. Clarke,
friend and neighbor in Arlington, Virginia, who had been our
Corps commander in Korea, 1952-53. Gen Clarke considered the
conduct of the Nuremberg Trials a black mark on the otherwise
unblemished “Crusade in Europe.” He also scoffed at the
obviously fabricated yarn that the Israelis had been “surprised at
prayer on this, their holiest day” when the Arabs launched a major
offensive on Yom Kippur (1973). “Since 1948, Israel has been
our surrogate in the Middle East,” he said. “Now, we have become
the surrogates of Israel and international Zionism.… Personally, I
fear for my Country.”36

These three officers reflect a knowledge and belief held by

most of us who served in combat in some of the bloodiest wars of
this century; not only officers, but the countless enlisted men who
went forth to defend their country against an ill-defined enemy
from without while a well-defined “fox,” hiding under our cloak,
was busily gnawing at our guts.
Consider the decisions made at the end of the war by
another of our colleagues in uniform who wore five stars on the
epaulets of his jacket – one Dwight David Eisenhower. As
recorded by James Bacque in Other Losses (1989), Ike issued an
order that German prisoners in our custody would no longer be
treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention (on treatment of
Prisoners of War). This one act condemned hundreds of thousands
of POWs to death by starvation and disease.37
We can look back to a revealing issue of the British weekly
The Economist (5 Oct 1946) wherein an editorial stated in part:
Among crimes against humanity stands the offence of the
indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who
dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of
western Germany plead ‘not guilty’ on this count? Crimes against
humanity also include the mass expulsion of populations. Can the Anglo-
Saxon leaders who at Potsdam condoned the expulsion of millions of
Germans from their homes hold themselves completely innocent?… The
nations sitting in judgment [at Nuremberg] have so clearly proclaimed
themselves exempt from the law which they have administered.38
In looking back at the fraudulent Nuremberg trials, one
must ask the question: who was really in charge? We get a clue (or
an admission) from one Nahum Goldmann among others, then the
president of the World Jewish Congress, who stated in his
autobiography (1969) inter alia:
It [the Nuremberg Tribunal] was the brain-child of World Jewish
Congress officials.… Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able
to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea.39
Today, we can ask the identical question: who is really in
charge? For another clue (or admission), let’s venture a little
farther down that bloody and rocky road which leads, however

circuitously, to the final goal of our fearful masters – establishment

of a global government of absolute despotism.
(Using the Absolute Weapon)

MacArthur thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever

exploded. [He] believed… that the military objective should always
be limited damage to noncombatants…. MacArthur, you see, was a
soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and
that is why the nuclear thing turned him off.
Former President Richard M. Nixon, 1985


W HY did we drop the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and

Nagasaki in August of 1945 although, at the time, every
major US military commander (except George Catlett Marshall)
opposed it – some violently so?
Who actually made the fateful decision and for what
overriding reason?
Three publications provide some startling revelations which
help to clarify what I consider to be an intentionally-obscured
picture of the events leading up to the destruction of two major
Japanese cities and virtually all of their civilian populace.
The Soviet wartime cables (Venona Intercepts) remove all
doubt about the American Communist Party’s role as the linchpin
of a Russian spy network, which was pervasive throughout our
government at the highest levels before, during and after World
War II. Writing in the Washington Times (1 Jan 1998), Evan Gahr
stated: “That revelation, of course, directly contradicts the notion

that Communist Party members were simply idealists or ‘liberals in

a hurry.’”
The deciphering of nearly 3,000 secret Soviet cables
transmitted between the US and the USSR – what came to be
known as the Venona Intercepts – was accomplished by the US
Army Signals Security Agency, then located in Northern Virginia.
A leading military historian, Ulick Steadman, stresses the
importance of these secret messages:
The de-mystified Moscow cable traffic revealed that there were
hundreds of Soviet spies burrowed into key positions in various branches
of the American government. They were US citizens, but for the most
part were foreign born or from recent immigrant stock. Adherence to
political Zionism apparently attenuated their allegiance to America and
made them willing recruits for Soviet espionage.…
Gen Omar Bradley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in
1947, respected and liked Truman, but he knew – as did other top
national-security officials in Washington – that Truman’s entourage had
been penetrated by Zionist agents. Concerned that anything known to the
White House would soon become known to the Zionist insiders, and
subsequently to the Soviets, Gen Bradley ordered the Venona intercepts
withheld from Truman, his commander-in-chief. 1
Martin Mann, writing in a special report in the weekly
newspaper Spotlight (14 Dec 1998), states that the Venona
transcripts released by the CIA, and now accessible to such
researchers as those at Harvard University, prove that Sen. Joseph
McCarthy was right when he warned the nation on 9 Feb 1950 that
205 Communist agents had infiltrated the US government. “That
was almost exactly the number of Soviet spies who were identified
from the nearly 3,000 intercepted Venona messages decoded by the
US Army,” says retired Pentagon cryptographer, H. Deter Gamage.
Is there in fact a connection between these revelations and
the decision made at the highest levels of the three “Allied”
governments in 1945 to totally devastate two major Japanese cities
and all of the civilian populace living therein? Was America
betrayed at Yalta – at Potsdam? If so, by whom? For a partial
answer, let’s look to a syndicated column (16 May 1994) by

Patrick J. Buchanan, one of our Country’s most erudite political

commentators and writers.
“Who betrayed the nation? Who was a fellow traveler?
Who was a dupe? Who was wrongly accused or falsely smeared?”
Buchanan asks these pointed questions regarding Soviet spy
Sudoplatov’s revelation that J. Robert Oppenheimer periodically
supplied the USSR with data on the construction of the first atomic
bomb. His stated guess is “that there is more, much more, to come
And now, after Buchanan’s pressing questions, the truth of
these conspiratorial crimes against humanity – perpetrated by the
Boshevist Communists – is almost literally gushing out. The
Secret World of American Communism, by Harvey Klehr, John
Earl Haynes and Fridrikh Igorovich Firsove, not only confirms the
thesis in this paper, but leaves no doubt that by 1919 American
Communist party members had set up an underground spy
network, complete with Soviet controllers, and financed by both
Russian and Wall Street sources.3
The book also details the transfer of atomic data by a host
of Communist Bolsheviks, among them the Rosenberg couple and
the infamous Alger Hiss, whose espionage has been surpassed only
by Henry Kissinger’s. It is interesting to note that Hiss got his start
in 1936 in the State Department, which Kissinger eventually took
over.… Today the latest crop of Communist Bolshevists is
pervasive throughout the government. Declassified documents
taken from the archives of the Communist International
(Comintern) reveal irrefutable first-hand accounts of base treachery
against the United States of America and its Constitution. The
goals have not changed over the entire time span from 1919 to
“McCarthy was right that there were Communists in
government,” according to the book reviewer Philip Terzian, “but
William Blake was wiser, ‘A truth that’s told with bad intent/Beats
all the lies you can invent.’”4

As for the business of inventing lies, first prize must go to

FDR. When one reads the official statements of FDR leading up to
the critical election of 1940, following the outbreak of the
European war in 1939, one is struck by his seemingly overriding
thought: how to keep the United States at peace.
By artful use of this subterfuge and at the same time
working assiduously with such as Winston Churchill, First Lord of
the Admiralty and later Prime Minister, “FDR lied us into war “
according to former Representative Clare Booth Luce.
Several high-ranking US military officers were well aware
as early as 1942 that both secret data and material components of
the atomic bomb were being provided surreptitiously to the
Soviets. For any number of reasons, most chose – and still choose
– to remain silent about the clandestine and treasonous transfer.
That same group of military officers also knew in 1945 that
there was absolutely no military requirement to drop the atomic
bombs on Japan.
Emperor Hirohito, negotiating with the US through the
good offices of the Vatican in April/May 1945, was willing to
surrender on exactly the same terms later effected in August.
This was the considered view of Harry Elmer Barnes, an
American intellectual giant and noted historian. In a series of
essays against interventionism, collectively titled, Barnes Against
the Blackout, he states that the Japanese “had been trying to
surrender on the same terms finally accepted in August 1945 –
terms submitted to President Roosevelt through General
MacArthur, who vainly urged Roosevelt to consider them.” Barnes
quotes the British Colonel J.F.C. Fuller, who described the
needless bombing as something “which would have disgraced
Genghis Khan and Tamerlane.”5

The questions remain: Why was it done? Who were the

high-level perpetrators? Who benefited? Keep in mind that since
1954 both the US and the USSR have exchanged detailed atomic
research and test results through the Pugwash Conferences (named
after the hideaway of their host, Cyrus Eaton, in Canada, and
started by a most curious pair indeed – Albert Einstein and
Bertrand Russell).
Earlier, it was Bernard Baruch who called the atomic bomb
the “absolute weapon.” He set himself up as the head of an
international organization, which he called “the United Nations
Atomic Energy Commission.” This was in 1944, some 16 months
before most of the cabinet – including the then vice president,
Harry S Truman – knew of the bomb’s existence and before the
initial meeting of a United Nations founding group. Truman, when
he became president, appointed Baruch to just such a position.6
Baruch knew of both coming events, for he was in on the
planning (present at the creation), as was his good friend, Albert
Einstein. Both men were avowed “internationalists,” both were
touted by a slavish and controlled press as being “great men”;
Bernard Baruch, financier, philanthropist, “elder statesman” and
“patriot”; Albert Einstein the “genius” and “pacifist.” And both
played a major role in setting up a one-world government based on
fear, as viewed by the founders of the United Nations, and so
succinctly stated by Einstein in 1945:
Since I do not foresee that atomic energy is to be a great boon
for a long time, I have to say that for the present it is a menace. Perhaps it
is well that it should be. It may intimidate the human race into bringing
order into its international affairs, which, without the pressure of fear, it
would not do.7


Einstein reveals himself in his two books, Why War?
(an exchange of letters with Sigmund Freud) and The World as I
See It. In the previously mentioned article in The Atlantic Monthly
(Nov 1945) “Einstein on the Atomic Bomb,” the professor spoke

of the “secret of the bomb,” which he felt should not be given to

the United Nations, nor shared with the Soviet Union.
Now comes the dichotomy.
Einstein proposes instead that “The secret of the bomb
should be committed to a World Government and the United States
should immediately announce its readiness to give it to a World
Next, this “genius” proposes that such a World Government
should be founded by the United States, the Soviet Union, and
Great Britain – “the only three powers with great military
strength.” He adds that each of these three Great Powers should
“commit to the World Government all of their military strength.”
Does this idea trouble you just a little?
How would such a World Government be formed? Dr.
Einstein enlightens us (and the world as he saw it): “Since the
United States and Great Britain have the secret of the atomic bomb
and the Soviet Union does not, they should invite the Soviet Union
to prepare and present the first draft of a Constitution for the
proposed World Government.”
Here is Einstein’s convoluted reasoning:
That action should help to dispel the distrust which the Russians
already feel because the bomb is being kept secret, chiefly to prevent their
having it. Obviously the first draft would not be the final one, but the
Russians should be made to feel that the World Government would assure
them their security.9
Dr. Einstein then proposes that smaller nations should be
invited to join the World Government, but would be free to stay
out. “The World Government would have power over all military
matters and need have only one further power: the power to
intervene in countries where a minority is oppressing a majority
and creating the kind of instability that leads to war.”
Einstein stresses that: “There must be an end to the concept
of non-intervention, for to end it is part of keeping the peace.”

Einstein continues: “[A] World Government is preferable

to the far greater evil of wars, particularly with their intensified
Here we see the eternal Talmudic threat and promise
embodied in the French Revolution and again in the Russian
Revolution. It hung as a dark shadow over FDR and his New Deal,
over Yalta and Potsdam, involving those three great powers of
which Einstein speaks so eloquently. It contains both the threat and
the promise and is embodied in its myriad statutes and judgments.
Einstein, that noble American import from Germany, gives us
threat and promise in spades.
Toward the end of his lucid article, Time's Man of the
Century, Einstein states:
Now that we have the atomic secret, we must not lose it, and that
is what we should risk doing if we should give it to the United Nations
organization or to the Soviet Union.
But we must make it clear, as quickly as possible, that we are not
keeping the bomb a secret for the sake of our power, but in the hope of
establishing peace in a World Government, and that we will do our utmost
to bring the World Government into being.11
So we see throughout that strange article not only the
dichotomies, but the promise of glorious world peace by way of
world government coupled with the threat of destruction – via UN
league to enforce peace – by nuclear means.
It was Einstein’s British friend, Bertrand Russell, who
stated boldly (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Oct 1946) that it was
necessary to “interject fear of nuclear weapons in order to force all
nations to give up their sovereignty and submit to the dictatorship
of a United Nations.”12
And it was this kind of thinking that prevailed at the second
Pugwash Conference in 1958, which produced the policy that came
to be known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
How did this concept of fear of nuclear power evolve?

In May of that fateful year (1945), this author was with a

US military force driving the remnants of the defeated Japanese out
of North Burma. Our headquarters was in Namhkam, Burma and
we would shortly head for Kunming, China. Simultaneously, our
B-29s, flying from Pacific atolls, devastated Tokyo with a series of
raids (27 May 1945).
Two days after the raids, the acting Secretary of State,
Joseph C. Grew, called on President Truman. He recommended
that the President enlarge his previous statement – “unconditional
surrender of Japan would mean neither annihilation nor
enslavement” – to include the statement that “surrender would not
mean the elimination of the present dynasty if the Japanese people
desired its retention.” Truman favored this approach: he asked
Grew to get a consensus from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson
and other advisors. Grew met with Stimson, James Forrestal, Gen.
Marshall, John McCloy, Elmer Davis and Judge Samuel
Rosenmann on 29 May 1945.13
The gist of Grew’s memo following the meeting reflected
that he, Stimson, Forrestal and Marshall favored the proposal,
while the others “for certain military reasons” considered it
“inadvisable” for the President to make such a statement. Grew
The question of timing was the nub of the whole matter. I
reported this to the President and the proposal for action was, for the time
being, dropped.14
Of course, this “question of timing” had to do with the
coming Potsdam Conference, its ultimatum issued to Japan from
the three great powers, and the belated entry of Soviet Russia into
the war against Japan just days before the dropping of the atomic
bombs and the surrender.
As Grew would later write: “If surrender could have been
brought about in May 1945, or even in June or July, before the
entrance of Soviet Russia into the war and the use of the atomic
bomb, the world would have been the gainer.”

Why did Rosenmann, McCloy and Davis hold out at the

meeting with Secretary of State Grew? What did they know and
when did they know it? For a clue, turn once more to a statement
made by Grew to Stimson in a personal letter dated 12 Feb 1947:
“If only it (had been) made clear that surrender would not involve
the downfall of the dynasty.”15
This point was clearly implied in Article 12 of the Potsdam
Proclamation, to wit:
The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from
Japan as soon as there has been established in accordance with the freely
expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and
responsible government.16
The psychological spin behind exploding the bombs was to
create such a worldwide fear of the power of nuclear energy that
countries would give up their sovereignty, turn all their weapons
and armed forces over to a world government, and surrender their
Which takes us right back to Einstein and his belief that “A
world government is preferable to the far greater evil of wars.”
What he was saying in fact – and if we are to give any credence at
all to his “brilliance,” we must agree – that we can submit to
absolute global despotism of the league to enforce peace or be
annihilated by the absolute weapon.
Perhaps the premier work on the decision to drop the
atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an
American Myth by Gar Alperovitz (1995). It is an exhaustive and
impeccably documented treatise of the events of that fateful
summer of 1945. Its conclusion, corroborated by nearly all the
military leaders and many of the political advisers to President
Truman, is that there was absolutely no need to drop the bombs.
Alperovitz reveals that Japan was on the verge of
surrendering as early as April 1945, and that virtually every

member of the military high command was opposed to their use.

Truman’s final decision was later (and still is) justified by a
gigantic “deception” (say lie) – the claim that upwards of a million
soldiers’ lives were saved which might otherwise have been lost in
an invasion of the Japanese home islands.
That myth has become the second greatest exaggeration of
the twentieth century.
Here are a few expressed views of some of the key military
officers involved in the dropping of the two atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945:
It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb,
the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse. (Gen Henry “Hap”
Arnold, CG, US Army Air Force)
The Air view was that the Japanese were finished. That they had
had it.… Arnold’s view was that it [the dropping of the bomb] was
unnecessary. He said that he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There
were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel that it
was the military’s job to question it. (Gen Ira Eaker, Dep CG, US Army
Air Force)
The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was of no material assistance in our war against Japan… [I]n being the
first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the
barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that
fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
(Adm William Leahy, Flt Adm US Navy and Chief of Staff to both FDR
and Harry Truman)
When the atomic bomb was first discussed with me in
Washington I was not in favor of it just as I have never favored the
destruction of cities as such with all inhabitants killed… (Gen Carl
“Tooey” Spaatz, CG, US Army Strategic AF)
Well, Tooey Spaatz came in… he said, ‘they tell me I am
supposed to go out there and blow off the whole south end of the Japanese
islands. I’ve heard a lot about this thing, but my God, I haven’t had a
piece of paper yet and I think I need a piece of paper.…’ ( Gen Thomas
Handy, Dep C of S US Army)
I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced
to (Sec War Henry Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my
belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was

completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country

should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. (Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower)
By the spring of 1945 most of Japan’s shipping had been sunk,
her Navy had been all but totally destroyed, and her Air Force had been
driven from the skies.… Our intelligence reports should have told us not
to use the atom bomb and not to give Russia an opportunity to enter the
struggle. (Gen Albert C. Wedemeyer, CG Chinese Theater of Operations,
in his book Wedemeyer Reports!)
The war would have been over in two weeks without the
Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.… The atomic bomb had
nothing to do with the end of the war at all. (Gen Curtis LeMay, 20 Sep
LeMay felt, as did the Navy, that an invasion of Japan wasn’t
necessary. He saw that we had the Japanese licked. (Gen Roscoe Wilson,
C of S, 316th Bomb Wing at Okinawa) 17
To understand the political implications, we get a clue
from Gen Laurence Kuter in 1974: “Numerous accounts made it
clear that given the position of the air force in 1945, Arnold
regularly supported Marshall in meetings of the Joint Staff. Arnold
was Marshall’s subordinate and there was never a minute’s doubt
about it on King’s part.… Arnold never differed with Marshall at
the Joint table.…”
While Arnold didn’t believe the use of atomic weapons was
necessary, he instructed Eaker to support the position taken by
Marshall. We get a clue of the political aspect from Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Nitze as well, who stated that Arnold
had made an agreement with Marshall that if Marshall backed an
independent strategic air command during the war, then after the
war he, Marshall, would support a separate air force. This came to
pass in 1947 under the Defense Reorganization Act.
Gen “Tooey” Spaatz emphasized: “The dropping of the
atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders.
We’re supposed to carry out orders and not question them.” He
told Ambassador Harriman that even he did not know why a
second bomb had been used against Nagasaki.

I thought if we are going to drop the atomic bomb, drop it on the

outskirts – say in Tokyo Bay – so that the effects would not be as
devastating to the city and the people. I made this suggestion over the
phone between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and I was told to
go ahead with our targets.
The succinct comment by Gen Spaatz about carrying out
orders has been echoed over the ensuing years by many of our
military leaders. Not all of our military endeavors were successful;
we were often sent out on ill-starred missions, such as the great
adventures in Korea and Vietnam. We were soldiers once… and
young; therefore, when our superiors defined the enemy, we
saluted smartly and went off to fight him.
Unfortunately, totally corrupt politicos at the very highest
levels of the government were defining that enemy. We soldiers
didn’t realize we were expendable until many of us were expended;
and we came home from Korea and Vietnam in defeat…as was
planned all along, for the Barbarians were already inside the gates
and issuing the orders for the ultimate destruction of our own
And subversion under a United Nations command.
The Nuremberg Trials proved nothing about following
orders. We, the military, followed the orders of our superiors in
executing such missions as the terror-bombing of Germany, the
fire-bombing of Japan; and finally, the use of the two atomic
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the devastation of their
To close with the enemy and destroy him was always our
stated mission. But we, the military, were never allowed to define
the enemy. It was FDR and his Barbarian (Bolshevist) advisers
who in 1943 came up with the term “unconditional surrender.” For
the first time in the history of modern warfare, that term called for
the total subjugation of the enemy, to include his sheep, cattle,
goats, women, children and suckling babes.
We see explicit evidence of this concept in the message
sent to Japan on 24 Jul 1945 from the Potsdam Conference which

warned the Japanese that they would suffer the same fate as
Germany. That message ends: “We call upon the Government of
Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the
Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate
assurances of their good faith in such action.” 18
The alternative for Japan is complete obliteration.

WE are led to believe that, in the mad scramble to come up with

what Bernard Baruch called “the absolute weapon,” the Soviets
trailed behind the combined efforts of Britain and the US, working
the Manhattan Project, and the separate effort by the Germans, to
produce an atomic bomb. We are further led to believe that the
USSR, on its own, ultimately developed a weapon.
Now, as we begin to grasp just who the Bolsheviks were,
we can better understand what many of us have recognized for
years, that the development of nuclear weapons of mass destruction
came from a single source and that work was shared by a group of
admittedly brilliant scientists of a common persuasion, no matter in
which country they temporarily resided and to which they gave no
There is a recent book which provides some valuable
missing links as to how atomic data were smuggled into the Soviet
Union in order for the Bolsheviks to develop their own weaponry:
Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy 1939-
1956, by David Holloway.
A Soviet physicist, Igor Kurchatov, built a cyclotron in
Leningrad (1933) and began reproducing experiments in nuclear
physics. The Nazi invasion of 1941 interrupted his work, except
that Giorgi Flerov, a colleague of Kurchatov’s, actually designed
an atomic bomb in December 1941.19
We learned from other sources, including Witness by
Whittaker Chambers, that the physicist, Klaus Fuchs, ensconced in
the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, joined forces with David
Greenglass and the Rosenbergs, and thus a steady stream of top
secret data was fed to Kurchatov. We will shortly see how Harry
Hopkins, a close FDR adviser, mightily assisted this effort,
including the passing of uranium. (In Controversy of Zion,
Douglas Reed provides a comprehensive account taken from Maj

Racey Jordan’s diary exposing Harry Hopkins and Alger Hiss’

clandestine transfer of US atomic bomb secrets and uranium to the
Soviet Union.)
Holloway appears to be proud of their achievements, seeing
them as being “on the way up from the Platonic cave toward the
sun.” They are in fact a cohesive band of brilliant Jewish
scientists, whether in the Soviet Union, the United States or
Britain, dedicated to the setting up of a one-world despotic
government with their Bolshevik Masters in charge. Just as Albert
Einstein and Lord Bertrand Russell did, they promised blessed
peace or fearful destruction.
Witness their cunning, their patience and, above all, their
absolute evil in such evidence as the Versailles Treaty following
the Great War, which paved the way for the second war to make
the world safe for democracy – and to totally devastate Germany
by such calculated acts of terror as the Morgenthau Plan, the
Lindemann Plan, and the farcical Nuremberg Trials.
“With regard to the bombing of the enemy civilian
population, everyone [in England] knew that civilians in Germany
were being slaughtered wholesale but it was believed that this was
an unavoidable by-product of an air-offensive against military
objectives. The comforting reflection was accepted that the
German civilian population could at any moment bring its
suffering to an end by surrendering unconditionally.” (F. J. P.
Veale, author of Advance to Barbarism: The Development of Total
At this moment in the United States, the American people
are suffering from related and ongoing calculated acts of terror
potentially every bit as destructive to us and our way of life as was
the saturation bombing of German civilians from March 1942,
culminating in the vast destruction of the city of Dresden toward
the war’s end in February 1945. It is a continuing chapter taken
from the Babylonian Talmud.

Such despicable acts as the shooting down of Korean Air

Flight 007, the blowing up of Pan Am 103 over Scotland, the
bombing of the Trade Center in New York, the Waco incineration,
the blowing up of the federal building in Oklahoma City by
explosive charges placed against pillars at the third floor level are
all are calculated acts of terror cunningly designed to cause
dissension and distrust amongst the governed.
The downing of TWA 800 passenger line by an errant US
Naval missile immediately prior to the 1996 Olympics, was a
coverup of the highest office in the face of an embarrased US upon
the launching of the Olympics.
Just as Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and his capable assistant the
KGB agent Harry Dexter White (Dexter Weiss) served FDR (and
Soviet Bolshevism) in the Treasury Department for 12 years, and
hatched the infamous Morgenthau Plan calling for the conversion
of Germany to a goat pasture; and just as Albert Einstein, J. Robert
Oppenheimer and other Talmudic scholars worked overtime in that
same time frame (1942-45) to develop the atomic bomb – what
Bernie Baruch called “the absolute weapon” – the Lindemann Plan
proposed the terror bombing of the German civilian populace.
Who was Karl Lindemann? He was a Jewish physicist, a
refugee from continental Europe, who came to London in the mid-
1930s. He became an advisor to and confidant of Churchill.
In 1961, a book, Science and Government by Sir Charles
Snow, revealed a closely guarded secret kept from the public for 20
years…the Lindemann Plan:
Early in March 1942 Professor Lindemann, by this time Lord
Cherwell and a member of the Cabinet, laid a top secret paper before the
Cabinet on the strategic bombing of Germany. It described in quantitative
terms the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next 18
months (Mar 42-Sep 43). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The
bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class
homes. Middle-class houses have too much space round them and so are
bound to waste bombs; factories and ‘military objectives’ had long since
been forgotten, except in official bulletins, since they were much too
difficult to find and hit.

The paper claimed that, given a total concentration of effort on

the production and use of aircraft, it would be possible, in all the larger
towns of Germany (that is, those with more than 50,000 inhabitants), to
destroy 50% of all homes.”21
The Lindemann Plan was eagerly accepted by the War
Cabinet, with full realization of its enormity in the commission of
mass murder of non-combatants. Over the next three years,
systematic terror bombing was put into effect by the Royal Air
Force Bomber Command. Following the absolutely devastating
pounding into rubble of the city of Dresden in a series of raids
involving thousands of bombers – both British and US, and night
and day – beginning on the night of 13 Feb 1945, a major debate
on the subject of terror-bombing took place in the House of
Commons on 6 Mar 1945. The debate followed an Associated
Press report authorized from Supreme Allied Headquarters in
Paris, which declared in part that “the long-awaited decision had
been taken to adopt deliberate terror bombing of German populated
centers as a ruthless expedient to hasten Hitler’s doom.”22
The British Government finally, in 1961, issued four
volumes entitled The Strategic Air Offensive, containing a wealth
of detail regarding the official policy of terror bombing against
Germany from March 1942 through May 1945 “in accordance with
the Lindemann Plan.”23
One might rightfully ask: When and where were the seeds
of this base criminality planted? What led us up to committing
such heinous acts as the terror-bombing of German civilians, the
fire-bombing of Japanese cities, the mass deportations of millions
from their homelands in Eastern Europe, the devastation of two
Japanese cities by “the absolute weapon”?
The planting of the seeds of this scene of hatred and
destruction took place at the First Zionist Conference, held in
Basel, Switzerland in 1897. It called for a continuing round of
political assassinations, acts of outright terror, and bloody
revolutions. Russia became the first major target. Mexico became
the second, as it too entered the twentieth century fomenting
bloody revolution.

In the late 1930s, President Roosevelt ordered US Catholic

bishops to withdraw the book, No God Next Door by Reverend
Michael Kenny, SJ, which exposed the Communist/Zionist
takeover of Mexico, threatening to take away the tax exemption of
the Roman Catholic Church.
Half a century ago, Fulton Oursler, in the popular Readers'
Digest, forecast the political environment of today:
Today’s curse upon political life is not so much what is unlawful
as what is unscrupulous. At the root of our decay is a sickness of
conscience.… The American people are finding it increasingly difficult
to be shocked, no matter what happens. Instead of resisting breaches of
public morality, we tend more and more to condone them, and dishonesty
along with them.…
Moral lassitude seems constantly to deepen in a world situation
of the greatest seriousness. One has only to watch the headlines to realize
that Democrats and Republicans alike have led us into a twilight of
We shall be lucky if it is not also the doom-time of democracy.24
This then is the ultimate betrayal. We come back to that
very basic question asked by ancient Romans who survived under
another Caesar: Cui bono? That is, who profits?
The unalterable fact is that FDR during World War II
joined Stalin and international Zionism. Consider the following
ecerepts from Roosevelt and Stalin by Professor Robert Nisbet:
During WW II Churchill voiced his views to Anthony Eden
concerning the postwar relationship between Russia and the rest of
Europe. Churchill wrote: “It would be a measureless disaster if Russian
barbarism overlaid the ancient states of Europe.”25
FDR, in a talk with Francis, Cardinal Spellman (1944), said
that the European people (not just the eastern European, note, but
the European people) would simply have to “endure Russian
domination in the hope that in ten or twenty years the European
influence would bring the Russians to become less barbarous.”

Nisbet’s book is filled with factual incidents of not only

sell-out, but outright treason, by FDR. He and Harry Hopkins, for
example, colluded secretly with the likes of Julius and Armand
Hammer, Bernard Baruch, and the Russian ambassador to have “as
much direct control of Russian aid, and just as little oversight from
the established congressional and executive agencies, as was
humanly possible.”26
Hopkins “was seeking to organize the Soviet aid program
in such a manner as to insure its control from the White House,
thereby circumventing the countervailing policy approaches
entrenched in other Washington quarters.”
While “Harry the Hop” and Henry Morgenthau, along with
Harry Dexter White, were providing the Soviets with the latest
nuclear bomb data from the Manhattan Project (as well as with
Treasury plates so that the Communists could print American
money for use in Eastern Europe), Senator Robert Taft warned the
American people:
The victory of communism would be far more dangerous than
the victory of fascism…communism masquerades, often successfully,
under the guise of democracy, though it is just as alien to our principles as
nazism itself.
It is a greater danger to the United States because it is a false
philosophy which appeals to many. Fascism is a false philosophy which
appeals to a very few indeed. 27
Nisbet also records Rooseveltian duplicity in attempting to
swing religious America into supporting Soviet Communism. This
blatant appeal to “Christian morality” is doubly important to
recognize today. Clinton used the same kind of propaganda (lies)
to swing the voting public (still mainly, if only nominally,
Christian) behind his false appeals to “sacrifice” and to
Nisbet points out that, in 1941, the White House, in an
effort to capture Protestant sympathies (for Stalin and against
Hitler), easily prepared a list of a thousand Protestant well-wishers
of the Soviets.

The liberal Catholic Church had not yet come into being in
America; but the liberal-progressive Protestant faith was already
In fact, in November 1941 (when FDR was well aware of
the impending attack by the Japanese), he spoke as follows at what
Nisbet calls “a notorious press conference.”
Roosevelt referred to Article 124 of the Russian
Constitution and even quoted bits of it… freedom of conscience…
freedom of religion… as well as “freedom equally to use
propaganda against religion, which is essentially what is the rule in
this country.…”
Nisbet quotes the historian Robert Dallek:
Roosevelt knew full well there was no religious freedom in the
Soviet Union. Nor was he blind to the fact that he could extend lend-
lease help to Russia without demonstrating her devotion to religious
freedom. But his concern to associate the Soviets with this democratic
principle extended beyond the question of aid to the problem of American
involvement in the war. Convinced that only a stark contrast between
freedom and totalitarianism would provide the emotional wherewithal for
Americans to fight, Roosevelt wished to identify the Russians regardless
of Soviet realities, with Anglo-American ideals as fully as he could.29
Even then, patriotic Americans inveighed against this artful
propagandist whose major goals of getting the United States
embroiled in another European conflict were twofold: (1)
Bolshevize the entire European continent; (2) Establish a Zionist
nation in Palestine.
Our circuitous and rocky road will take us to that Zionist
nation in the following chapters.
(A Calculated Strategy of Tension)

Communism teaches and seeks two objectives: unrelenting class

warfare and the complete eradication of private ownership. Not
secretly or by hidden methods does it do this, but publicly openly and
by employing any means possible, even the most violent.
Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, 1931


O NE of the most interesting facets of 20th century history,

although little known, was the marriage of convenience
between the Jewish Zionists and the National Socialists (Nazis) of
Germany. We saw in Chapter 4 how a calculated strategy of
tension was created by the leaders of these two groups in order to
bring about the emigration from Germany (and eventually much of
Europe) of Jewish people for resettlement in Palestine.
We also discovered early on in this work how such Marxist
followers as Lenin and Trotsky established Bolshevism, also
known as Communism or Social Democracy, in Russia. It was the
natural outcome of another marriage of convenience, between the
political arm of the Jewish Nation, called Zionism, with Britain’s
Fabian Socialism.
Bolshevism led to the setting up of dictatorial forms of
government, first Fascism in Italy (1922) under Mussolini, and
then National Socialism in Germany (1933). The roots of National
Socialism go back to the National Socialist German Workers Party
(NSDAP) founded in 1919. Just as in the taking-over of Russia

under Bolshevism, both Fascism and Nazism were directly

financed by the Universalist bankers located in Berlin and
Frankfurt, as well as in the City of London and in New York City.
There was an important difference in the setting up of these
various dictatorships. Let’s first consider the dictionary definition
of what we call Fascism: “a rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible
suppression of the opposition, the retention of private ownership of
the means of production under centralized governmental control,
belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, internal
suppression of the citizens by a brutal and secret police force.”
We find Fascism alive and well in many countries of the
world, most often under other names. The important difference is
that such names as “democracy,” “socialism,” “social democracy,”
and even “Communism” are meant to convey to the unwary ear a
kinder, gentler form of tyranny. As Dr. John Coleman so aptly
describes in his hard-hitting book Socialism: The Road to Slavery,
all of these forms of totalitarianism, regardless of whether they are
deemed to be “benevolent” or “brutal,” lead to a repressive one-
world socialist government, with a very few of the superior or
chosen ones in total charge and the vast balance of mankind
leveled out at the bottom as helots, slaves and/or “worker bees.”1
We see this idea reflected in The Traditions of the Jews by
that renowned 19th century Talmudic scholar, J. P. Stehelin. He
quotes from Baba Bathra (in the Talmud):
Let us see a little after what manner the Jews are to live in their
ancient Country under the Administration of the Messiah. In the First
Place, the strange Nations, which they shall suffer to live, shall build them
houses and cities, till their ground, and plant their vineyards; and all this
without so much as looking for any reward of their labor. These surviving
Nations will likewise offer them all their wealth and furniture; and Princes
and Nobles shall attend them; and be ready at their nod to pay them all
manner of obedience; while they themselves shall be surrounded with
grandeur and pleasure, appearing abroad in apparel glittering with jewels
like Priests of the Unction, consecrated to G-d.…2
Wilhelm Marr, who played a key role in fomenting the
revolution of 1848, wrote of the coming Jewish conquest of the

world. “The epitome of the degradation of humanity,” he declared,

“is the so-called religion called Christianity.”
In 1879 his Conquest of Germanism by Judaism was
published. He wrote:
The advent of Jewish imperialism, I am firmly convinced is only
a question of time.… The Empire of the World belongs to the Jews… Val
Victus! Woe to the conquered! I do not pretend to be a prophet, but I am
quite certain that before four generations have passed, there will not be a
single function in the State, the highest included, which will not be in the
hands of the Jews.… To judge by the course of events, the capitulation of
Russia is only a question of time.… In that vast Empire, Judaism will
find the fulcrum of Archimedes which will enable it to drag the whole of
Western Europe off its hinges once for all. The wily Jewish spirit of
intrigue will bring about a revolution in Russia such as the world has
never seen.… When the Jews shall get control of the Russian State…they
will set about the destruction of the social organization of Western
Europe. This last hour of Europe will arrive at least in a hundred or a
hundred and fifty years.… What Russia has to expect from the Jews is
quite clear.3
In Beasts of the Apocalypse Olivia Maria O’Grady reveals
that, following WW II, such organizations as the United World
Federalists (UWF) had invaded the teachers’ unions in the United
States and were striving to inculcate into the minds of
impressionable students the idea of a one-world of peace and
brotherhood, including “warm milk” for the school children of
central Africa, which, freely given, would be a generous gesture,
but so typical of the Communists who are past-masters in the art of
She asks the question: Is the United World Federalists
subversive? Defining the term subversive as having a tendency to
overthrow, upset or destroy, the answer must be a resounding
“yes.” She then asked if the UWF advocated the overthrow of the
sovereignty of the United States? It does, she said, but added that
its activities are perfectly legal and within the provisions of the
Constitution of the United States itself.
It advocates an amendment to the Constitution by constitutional
methods, which, if adopted, would of course destroy the Constitution and
all that it stands for. In a sense the movement is in the category of

national suicide by legitimate means, and there is not much that anyone
can do about it.4
O’Grady declares that “the faith of the Jews that they, as the
Chosen People, will ultimately rule the world, while based on their
misconception of the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham, is a
manifestation of a race-superiority concept that towers a hundred
times over any idea ever advanced by Hitler. It is an amazing
concept that divides the world into two classes: the Chosen People
and ‘cattle’ (goyim).”5
She cites the history of “One People; One Nation; a Chosen
People, destined to rule the world,” and traces their educational
process, always under the rigid control and guidance of the rabbis:
Every minute of the day and every day of the year had its precise
regulation. Every act was molded to fit the tortured interpretation of the
Scriptures, while the most trivial incident of existence was decided by the
dialectic mental gymnastics of the men of the Talmud…the mind of the
Jewish child developed in the ever-present strait-jacket of race-
Upon this Millennium we witness the culmination of that
Covenant between Jehovah and Abraham – “One People; One
Nation… a Chosen People, destined to rule the world,” especially
in the tiny theocratic state of Israel where, after 50 years of brutally
subjugating the Arab peoples who had lived there for 2,000 years,
the Zionists in 1996 relocated their capital from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem. O’Grady explains the import of that particular city:
Each Jewish community throughout the world turned its thoughts
toward Jerusalem and, as the centuries rolled by, the ancient seat of
Jewish power came to symbolize the central theme of Judaism – the
ultimate fulfillment of the Covenant Jehovah had made with Abraham.
Certainly, before the Gentile world lay at their feet, the Chosen People
must re-establish the seat of world government in its ancient place –
O’Grady points out that the dream of a renewed national
existence and a return to Palestine, with Israel dominant over all
the Gentile nations of the world, has been the most persistent
obsession of the Jews through the centuries. While some of the
moderate Jews, particularly those who came to the United States in

the 19th century, attempted to blot out this sinister doctrine, the
rise of political Zionism through the zealous and energetic support
of the Khazar Jews of Eastern Europe (who comprised 90% of the
Jews gathered at the momentous conference in Basle, Switzerland
in 1897) completely smothered the good sense of the Reformed
The descendants of the captive tribes of Babylon (Judah
and Benjamin) continually looked forward to re-establishment of
their kingdom. O’Grady says they have always looked to the day
when Israel would rule the world from Jerusalem.
Following is synopsis of Palestine history. Following the
partition of the Roman Empire (AD 395), Palestine fell to the
Empire of the East. For more than 200 years the country enjoyed a
pastoral peace. Palestine was then a part of Syria.
In AD 611 the peace of the Holy Land was broken by the
thunder of war as the armies of Persia invaded Syria, destroying
everything in their path. Jerusalem was taken. The Church of the
Holy Sepulcher was razed to the ground, its treasures carted off;
not a church or cross was left standing. In 628 Emperor Heraclius
reconquered the lost territory and returned it to the Byzantine
Abu Bekr, who succeeded Mohammed, carried the crescent
into Syria, defeating Heraclius. City after city fell under the
onslaught. A major battle was joined in 636, and Heraclius was
defeated. Jerusalem capitulated.
Then came the Crusades, then the Mongolians of Central
Asia. Palestine eventually came under the Mameluke sultans of
Egypt; then came the Tatar tribes – and finally the Turks. O’Grady
This is the land the Jews claim as their own. Four thousand
years ago Jehovah said: “Unto thy seed will I give this land.…” Jewry
contends that Jehovah promised that the Jews would return to Palestine
and that this promise will be fulfilled because of its divine origin. The

Jews well know that this prophecy was fulfilled over two thousand years
ago. Only the Christians seem to have forgotten it.8
In his epic work Zionists and the Bible, Professor Alfred
Guillaume of the University of London points out that the Jews did
return to Judea, they did rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, and they
did rebuild the temple (under the Maccabees). “Thus the
prophecies of the Return have been fulfilled, and they cannot be
fulfilled again. Within the canonical literature of the Old
Testament there is no prophecy of a second return from the
Babylonian Exile.”9
The very basis of the 63 books of the Talmud (the Law) is
the promise of the re-establishment of the power of Israel and its
ultimate control over the affairs of all mankind. The destruction of
the Temple (70 AD) in Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian “only
served to rekindle the burning fever for the great day of retribution
and revenge,” reports O’Grady.
She further states that this doctrine is expressed in
numerous Jewish prayers. “The Cabala gives particular emphasis
to the Judaic dream of world-domination. The Zohar treats the
event as having taken place. Toldoth Noah explains that ‘the Feast
of the Tabernacles is the period when Israel triumphs over the other
people of the world.’”10
Throughout the centuries, Cabalistic doctrines spread about
the Jewish communities, reawakening hopes of the coming of the
“true” Messiah who would establish the Covenant and bring the
entire Gentile world under Jewish domination. This doctrine is
nurtured by the Sons of the Covenant which, we saw earlier, was
created in 1843 in Charleston, South Carolina by a small group of
land- and slave-owning Jews who established the Independent
Order B’nai B’rith. By 1930, O’Grady informs us, there were
seven Grand Lodges in the United States and eight abroad. By
1990 there were 267 lodges throughout the world.
Their ultimate creation was the Anti-Defamation League
(ADL), a sub-lodge established in 1913 as an “enforcer” arm of
their Cabalistic doctrine. By this time, the Khazars – Jews who

were not Jews, but descendants of the fierce and warlike tribes of
Turko-Asiatic who had been converted to Judaism in the seventh
century – had pervaded the United States. Between 1881 and
1920, two million Khazars entered our portals. During that time,
the increase in population of the United States as a whole was 112
percent, while the Jewish increase was 1300 percent.11
And during that time we witnessed the complete
destruction of Russia, as foretold by Wilhelm Marr (among others)
in 1879.
Simultaneously with the subjugation of the Russian peoples
by the Bolsheviks, a document in the form of a handbill was
discovered in wide circulation among the Jews of the Czech
Republic, in Budapest, in Belgrade, and in Estonia, as well as in
Russia, during the period 1919-21. It was written in Hebrew, but
was translated and read in a speech before the Czech Parliament by
a deputy named Masanac. A translation also appeared in The
Rulers of Russia by Dr. Hans Eisele. The text follows:
Sons of Israel! The hour of victory is at hand. We are on the
eve of becoming masters of the world. What seemed to be merely a
dream is on the point of being realized. Formerly weak and feeble we can
now proudly lift up our heads, thanks to the disorder and confusion of the
world. By clever propaganda we have held up to criticism and ridicule
the authority and practice of a religion which is foreign to us. We have
plundered the sanctuary of that foreign cult, and we have shaken the hold
of their traditional culture upon nations, finding among them more helpers
than we needed in our task. We have succeeded in bringing the Russian
Nation under Jewish sway and we have compelled it, at last, to fall on its
knees before us. Russia, mortally wounded, is now at our mercy.
The fear of the danger in which we stand will not allow us either
to exercise compassion or to feel mercy. At last it has been given us to
behold the tears of the Russian people. By taking away from them wealth
and their gold, we have turned the Russians into wretched slaves. But we
must be prudent and circumspect. We have to eliminate all the best
elements of Russian society, in order that the enslaved Russians may have
no leaders. Thus we shall forestall every possibility of resisting our
might. Wars and civil strife will destroy all the treasures of culture
created by the Christian peoples.

Be prudent, Sons of Israel. Do not confide in treacherous and

mysterious forces. Bronstein, Rosenfeld, Steinberg, Apfelbaum, and
many other faithful sons of Israel are in the ranks of the commissars and
play the leading roles, but do not lose your heads over the victory. Be
prudent, for you can rely only on yourselves to safeguard you and defend
you. Sons, of Israel, close up your ranks and combat for your eternal


The Arabs, believing they were fighting for independence,
fought and died in England’s war – the Great War. At the same
time, A. J. Balfour had promised Palestine as a home for the Jews.
In addition to this base treachery, England and France agreed (by
the Sykes-Picot Treaty) to divide the Arab lands between them
after the war. Ramsay MacDonald, British statesman, summed up
this triple dealing:
We encouraged an Arab revolt in Turkey by promising to create
an Arab kingdom from the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire,
including Palestine. At the same time, we were encouraging the Jews to
help us by promising them that Palestine would be placed at their disposal
for settlement and government; and also at the same time we were making
with France the Sykes-Picot agreement partitioning the territory which we
had instructed our governor general of Egypt to promise the Arabs. The
story is one of crude duplicity and we cannot escape the reprobation
which is its sequel.13
Thirty years later, Arnold Toynbee in A Study of History
stated virtually the same:
While the direct responsibility for the calamity that overtook the
Palestinian Arabs in AD 1948 was on the heads of the Zionist Jews who
seized a lebensraum for themselves in Palestine by force of arms in that
year, a heavy load of indirect yet irrefutable responsibility was on the
heads of the people of the United Kingdom; for the Jews would not have
had in AD 1948 the opportunity to conquer an Arab country in which they
had what amounted to no more than an inconsiderable minority in AD
1918 if, during the intervening thirty years, the power of the United
Kingdom had not been exerted continuously to make possible the entry of
Jewish immigrants into Palestine contrary to the will, despite the protests
and without regard to the foreboding of Arab inhabitants of the country
who in AD 1948 were duly to become the victims of this long pursued
British policy.14


Beasts of the Apocalypse records that on June 10, 1917
American Jews cast 350,000 ballots for delegates to the first
American Jewish Congress, which opened in Philadelphia
December 15, 1918.
The Congress demanded that the forthcoming Peace
Conference establish “equal civil, political, religious and national
rights for all citizens of a territory without distinction as to race,
nationality, or creed.” It also demanded “recognition of the historic
claims of the Jewish people with regard to Palestine, and
establishment of such political, administrative, and economic
conditions in that country as would assure its development into a
Jewish Commonwealth.”15
O’Grady points to the obvious paradox:
Having won full citizenship rights in the United States they now
boldly proclaim that they are a single separate nation…they brazenly
demanded a special status for themselves.… In particular they demanded
recognition of their historic claim to the land of another people, and
called upon the world powers to assist them in their proposed conquest of
that land.…
The World Jewish Congress was actually the creation of the
American Jewish Congress. World War I forever destroyed the fiction
that Jews were citizens of the countries of their birth or naturalization.…
As the war developed and Allied victory became certain, American Jewry
prepared to join with the international Jews of the world for participation
as a nation in the inevitable Peace Conference.16
The dawn of the so-called “peace” conference in 1919
found Paris literally flooded with Jews from all over the world. As
O’Grady relates:
Whatever their status in the lands that harbored them, they
remained merely the sons of the covenant; one people, one nation. Each
felt he was playing a historic part in the destiny of Israel. Not one of them
was concerned with ‘making the world safe for democracy’.
They shared a single thought and purpose – the capture of
Palestine and a world government to make the world over for their
domination. They went to work, forming the Comite des Delegations
Juives aupres de la Conference de la Pai (Committee of Jewish

Delegations at the Peace Conference). In addition to delegates from

various countries, representatives of the World Zionist Organization and
the B’nai B’rith were included in the Committee’s membership. It
purported to speak for ten million Jews.…
Laying the groundwork for another world war, the ‘new and
enlarged states’ were compelled ‘to assume an obligation to embody in a
treaty with the principal Allied and Associated powers such provisions as
might be deemed necessary by the said Powers to protect the inhabitants
who differed from the majority of the population in race, language or


One of the Jewish Americans attending the Peace
Conference in Paris was Benjamin H. Freedman. The young and
impressionable New Yorker was an aide to the banker, Henry
Morgenthau, Sr. The proceedings at the Conference and its
aftermath led Freedman eventually to reject the teachings of the
Talmud and its doctrine of a superior race chosen by Jehovah to
rule the world. An avowed Zionist at the time of the Peace
Conference, he became a vocal anti-Zionist and then eventually
“joined mankind” by becoming a Christian.
In 1954 Dr. Benjamin H. Freedman published his work
Facts are Facts, stating on the frontispiece that “The historic facts
revealed here for the first time provide incontestable evidence that
their continued suppression will prove inimical to the security of
the nation, the peace of the world, the welfare of humanity, and the
progress of civilization.”
He singles out the rise and fall of the Kingdom of the
Chazars (Khazars) as defined in the Jewish Encyclopedia – whom
he calls “the so-called or self-styled Jews” (the Jews who are not
Jews) – as being the key to the understanding of the 20th-century
world’s international problems inimical to the nation’s security.
He states that “the divine and sacred mission of the
Christian faith is in jeopardy today to a degree never witnessed
before in its long history of almost two thousand years.” He warns
of a diabolical group intent on destroying that faith, “while

Christians appear to be sound asleep. The Christian clergy appear

to be more ignorant or more indifferent about this than other
Christians” (the Christians who are not Christian).18
“The confusion in the minds of Christians concerning
fundamentals of the Christian faith is unwarranted and unjustified,”
he states. “It need not exist. It would not exist if the Christian
clergy did not aid and abet the deceptions responsible for it.”
Freedman refers to the official Soncino edition of the
Talmud published in 1935, stating that “there have never been
recorded more vicious and vile libelous blasphemies of Jesus, of
Christians and the Christian faith than you will find between the
covers of the infamous 63 books of the Talmud which “forms the
basis of Jewish religious law, as well as being the textbook used in
the training of rabbis.”19
Freedman outlines the history of the Khazars, stating that
they were not Semites, but in fact were an Asiatic Mongoloid
nation, classified by modern anthropologists as Turko-Finns
racially. A warlike nation, they were driven from Asia and invaded
Eastern Europe to escape further defeats by the Asians.
The Khazars were a pagan nation when they invaded eastern
Europe,” Dr. Freedman writes. “Their religious worship was a mixture of
phallic worship and other forms of idolatry.” In the 7th century, their
King Bulkan selected as the future state religion, “Talmudism,” now
known as “Judaism.”20
From the 10th through the 13th centuries the rapidly-
expanding Russian nation gradually swallowed up the Khazar
kingdom. This accounts for the large number of so-called or self-
styled Jews in Russia, Dr Freedman explains. They were no longer
known as Khazar but as the “Yiddish” populations. According to
Dr. Freedman:
Approximately 90% of the world’s so-called or self-styled Jews,
living in 42 different countries of the world today are either emigrants
from eastern Europe, or their parents emigrated from eastern Europe.
‘Yiddish’ is a language common to all of them as their first or second

Freedman singles out the word “antisemitism” as one that

should be eliminated from the English language. “Antisemitism
serves only one purpose today,” he states. “It is used as a smear
word.” He continues: “I can speak with great authority on that
subject. Because so-called or self-styled Jews were unable to
disprove my public statements in 1946 with regard to the situation
in Palestine, they spent millions to smear me as an antisemite,
hoping thereby to discredit me in the eyes of the public who were
very much interested in what I had to say. Until 1946 I was a little
saint to all the so-called or self-styled Jews. When I disagreed with
them publicly on the Zionist intentions in Palestine I became
Antisemite No. 1.”21

DATE: August 1945; place: London; event: a special

gathering of the World Jewish Congress, whose delegates resolved
that the Congress:
Fully endorses the demand that the Palestine White Paper
of 1939 should be immediately abrogated and that the gates of
Palestine should be opened to unrestricted immigration and urges
that the United Nations should without delay give their approval
for the establishment of a Jewish democratic State in Palestine.22
Notice the choice of words…demand…immediately
abrogated…without delay…democratic State.… This, of course, is
not “democracy” as we were taught its meaning, but Fascism, pure
and simple. Nevertheless, it was an effective choice of words,
which the founding members of the United Nations (convened in
San Francisco that very month under Alger Hiss) understood,
principally because they spoke the same language.
Ernest Bevin, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
(13 Nov 1945), declared that “Jewry as a whole” must be
distinguished from the Zionist Jews who were demanding the
ancient home of the Arabs.23
The WJC quickly replied:
The World Jewish Congress, speaking for Jewish communities
and organizations in 32 countries, and expressing what is without question
the attitude of the great majority of the world, completely repudiates the
existence of any such distinction. The World Jewish Congress and Jews
everywhere will continue to give the Jewish Agency for Palestine… their
fullest support in its battle for the rights of the Jewish people with regard
to Palestine.24
What the WJC was addressing was “democracy in
action”… a concept come to full flower in the United States,
especially in our august body known as the Congress, whose
members purport to “represent” the majority of their constituents.

This is Fascism in full flower. That cluster of pretty posies – its

petals labeled socialism, democracy, Communism, Bolshevism,
Nazism, Zionism – emits the same mesmerizing odor, the smell of
offal we call Fascism… but with a pretty face.
O’Grady gives us statistics of the time; call it a body count.
She states that in 1944 there were 1,062,277 Arabs in Palestine.
The Christian population numbered 135,547. By steady
“colonization” the Jewish population had increased to 528,702.
In 1946, came the terror. During that year, the Palestinian
Jews embarked on a sustained campaign of terror against the
British administration. O’Grady says, “assassinations, bombings
and other criminal activities were carried out systematically.”
The Palestine Zionist Irgun Zvai Leumi, encouraged by
Jewish support from abroad – particularly from the United States –
stepped up its treacherous terrorist activities. Elements attacked
air-fields, radars, rail lines, armories and military posts on a daily
basis; roads were mined and ships blown up in Haifa harbor.
Banks were held up in a fashion startlingly reminiscent of the
activities of that great Georgian Bolshevist and bank robber,
Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili, aka Stalin, prior to the Russian
Revolution of 1917.
On 22 Jul 1946, the Irgun gangster-statesmen, under the
leadership of Manachem Begin – later to become prime minister –
blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the British
military headquarters and the civil secretariat. Ninety-one persons
were killed outright and 45 injured, among them a then major of
the Royal Signal Corps, Thomas Foster (who, along with his wife,
Doreen, would become dear friends of mine when we were
stationed in the Pentagon in the 1960s). Colonel Foster, with
typical British stoicism, held no animosity toward either the Zionist
gangsters or the Jewish people in general, but laid much of the
blame on the “utter stupidities” of the British governing elite –
including Winnie, whose reign ended rather suddenly in August,

An Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine

was set up in January 1946. Influenced by a statement on the part
of the British section of the World Jewish Congress, the
Committee published a report (29 Mar 1946) calling for issuance
of 100,000 immigration certificates for European Jews, “to be used
as far as possible in 1946.” It also called for continuance of the
British mandate, pending trusteeship under the United Nations.
Typical of the fast-fading British Raj was Prime Minister
Clement Attlee, who stated on 1 May 1946 that the implementation
of the (Jewish) report by Britain would depend first on “the extent
to which the US Government would be prepared to share the
resulting military and financial responsibilities.”25
Harry Truman cabled Attlee on 4 October, urging
immediate issue of the 100,000 certificates to create “a visible
Jewish state in control of its own immigration and economic
policies in an adequate area of Palestine instead of the whole of
Palestine.” (Words taken from the counter-proposal of the Jewish
Agency for Palestine.)26
The Holy Land became an armed camp. The Stern Gang
and Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorists intensified their attacks on the
British troops and police. Lord Moyne, the British executive, was
assassinated. The secret Jewish army, Haganah, vigorously
organized Jewish emigration from Europe to Palestine, in spite of
British action in turning back Jews illegally entering the country.
The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine
(UNSCOP) was appointed on 15 May 1947 to render a report to
the General Assembly. On 6 Aug 1947, the World Jewish
Congress sent a memo demanding a Jewish state in Palestine.
Affiliates of the Congress from several European countries
bombarded the Special Committee with demands to dispossess the
Arabs and give the Jews “their” country.
The Arabs, in turn, warned the United Nations that
partitioning Palestine into two states would bring perpetual war
into the area. The Arabs demanded a “democratic, independent
Palestine with equal rights for all its inhabitants.”27

The Jews were horrified to learn that their new State, as

designated by the United Nations, now contained approximately an
equal number of Arab inhabitants. How would it be possible to
have a “democratic” Jewish State if half the state was Arab?
The terrorists set out to “equalize.” They blew up the
Semiramus Hotel in Jerusalem (5 Jan 1948), burying 22 Arabs
beneath the rubble. A terrific explosion in the public square of the
city of Jaffa killed 30 Arabs and injured 98 others.
The main Jewish attack was against the numerous isolated
villages. At Dair Yasin the Zionists massacred the entire
population of 250 men, women and children. The assassins
boasted of the exploit as “a masterpiece of military tactics.”
Menachem Begin, Irgun leader, declared:
All the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a
knife through butter. The Arabs fled in panic shouting ‘Dair Yasin’28
Historian, Arnold Toynbee, referring to the many Jewish
atrocities, declared:
In AD 1948, the Jews knew from personal experience what they
were doing; and it was their supreme tragedy that the lesson learned by
them from their encounter with Nazi gentiles should have been not to
eschew but to imitate some of the evil deeds that the Nazis committed
against the Jews.29
O’Grady states that as the date for termination of the British
Mandate grew closer, the Zionists intensified their attacks,
occupying most of the towns of Palestine and driving Arabs and
Christians from their homes.… Tiberias and Samakh, attacked and
occupied, 19 Apr 1948; Haifa, 22 Apr; Jaffa, 29 Apr; the Arab
Quarter of Katamon in Jerusalem, 30 Apr; Safed, 10 May; Beisan,
11 May; and Acre, 14 May.
O’Grady makes the telling point that all of these “military”
operations of the Zionist armies “were against a peaceful, unarmed,
defenseless people. And all of these conquests and occupations
took place before the British withdrawal on 15 May 48 – at a time
when there was not a single soldier from any Arab State on the soil
of Palestine.”30

The Jews, not content with the territory allotted them by the
United Nations, attacked the Arab populations in other districts.
Galilee was occupied, as was Lydda, Ramleh, Majdal and
Beersheba. As a result of this expansionist maneuver, the Zionists
grabbed most of the fertile land out of which the Arabs were to
have carved their “state” under the partition plan of the United
On 15 May 1948, the date of the creation of the State of
Israel, the Zionists owned less than 6% of the land of Palestine. By
1958 they owned over 80%.31
Another quote from Toynbee is highly revealing:
The evil deeds committed by the Zionist Jews against the
Palestinian Arabs that were comparable to crimes committed against the
Jews by the Nazis, were the massacre of men, women and children at Dair
Yasin on the 9th of April 1948, which precipitated a flight of the Arab
population in large numbers from districts within range of the Jewish
armed forces and the subsequent deliberate expulsion of the Arab
populations from districts conquered by the Jewish forces.… The Arab
blood on the 9th of April 1948 at Dair Yasin was on the head of Irgun; the
expulsions after the 15th of May 1948 were on the heads of all Israel.32
Following proclamation of the new Jewish state of Israel,
the five great powers of the Security Council of the United Nations
named Count Folke Bernadotte to act as mediator between the
Jews and Arabs, the latter rejecting the UN partition of their
country and refusing to recognize the Jewish state.
O’Grady writes that Count Bernadotte possessed courage
and a high sense of fairness, and believed in doing justice. He
called for Jerusalem to be placed under UN control and called upon
the UN to affirm the right of the Arab refugees to return to their
homes in Jewish-controlled territory. O’Grady reports that he
submitted his recommendations to the UN on September 16, 1948,
and the Zionists murdered him and his aide, Colonel Serot, the
very next day. His proposals for peace were not acted upon by the
United Nations.
Perhaps the most telling – certainly the most tragic – note
to be found in Olivia Maria O’Grady’s epic work is her quote of

Rabbi Elmer Berger’s views regarding the Arab refugees. She

It must not be believed that all Jews share the Nazi-like
characters of the Israelis – and no doubt there are Jews of Israel who are
completely disillusioned by the reality as they look back on the dream.
The American Council for Judaism is a group of American Jews who are
not ashamed to be American and who adhere to the finest principles,
ideals and morality of their religion. Rabbi Elmer Berger is a member of
that organization. His voice, like the voice of so many others, is silenced
by the overpowering influence of the Zionist Jewish organizations.33
Rabbi Berger visited the Holy Land in 1955; his
impressions have been published under the title Who Knows Better
Must Say So. He speaks of the Arab refugees, “but the condition of
the refugees,” he writes, “is not the whole tragedy.”
No less appalling and depressing is the frame of mind of those
charged with ‘solving’ or ‘alleviating’ this problem. It is difficult to
suppress the overpowering surge of moral outrage one feels as he looks at
the refugees… and sees in his mind Mr. Eban’s [Prime Minister Abba
Eban’s] glib advice that the Arab states have a lot of land and let them
absorb these people.
It is another thing to look at a fraction of ‘these people’ and see
them – and their children – as living human beings offered Mr Eban’s glib
solution. And I could not stand in these places – remember that I am a
Jew – and not cringe with shame and disgrace and – I do not hesitate to
say it – a hatred of ‘Jewish’ racism that created a state which now says
that these people cannot live in it because they are not Jews.34


Is criticism of what the Zionist Bolsheviks did to the land
once called Palestine confined to such Jewish writers and
historians as Israel Shahak, Rabbi Berger, Dr. Freedman and Jack
Bernstein? No indeed!
A 22-part television series entitled Tkuma (Rebirth) has
stirred widespread controversy in Israel,” reports Allan C.
Brownfeld, editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American
Council for Judaism.35

He cites Joel Greenberg, who writes in the New York Times

that the series challenges “the traditional Zionist tale of heroic
return and nation-building in an empty, desolate homeland,” and
has evoked reactions from outrage to quiet approval.
“The widely watched program,” writes Greenberg, “is an
unvarnished historical Zionist story with a variety of narratives,
including the voices of Palestinians, Israeli Arabs and Sephardic
Jewish immigrants resentful of their treatment by Israel’s
European-born establishment.”36
The re-examination of Israel’s beginnings, Greenberg
points out, “reflects a process that began more than ten years ago,
when a few Israeli scholars began challenging conventional
accounts of their country’s history.”37
Among the events highlighted by these “new historians” are
the expulsion and flight of the Palestinians, “the killing of Arab
civilians in border skirmishes and retaliatory raids and terrorist
attacks in the 1950s, and what the scholars described as missed
opportunities to negotiate with Arabs.”
Critics on the right charged that the series questioned the
justice of the Zionist enterprise. Cabinet member Aerial Sharon
urged Education Minister Yitshak Levi “to ban the series from the
Aryeh Caspi, writing in the Israeli paper Ha’aretz, declares:
The anger at ‘Tkuma’ is because we don’t want to know and we
can’t bear the sense of guilt. The establishment of the state of Israel was
justice for the Jews, but it was accompanied by a terrible injustice to the
Leonard Fein, writing in the Jewish weekly The Forward,
points out that Israel’s 50th anniversary produced far more
celebration in the US than in Israel itself. There, he notes:
Disenchantment, quite literally, was in the air. The Founding
Fathers were unveiled as having feet of clay. Revisionist historians,
controversial in the groves of the academy, had successfully altered the
public consciousness, hence, much cynicism, little trust, low morale.39

Brownfeld states that Israeli intellectuals are beginning to

question the basic tenets of Zionism. He singles out as having
particular interest the book The Founding Myths of Israel by Zeev
Sternhell, professor of political science at Hebrew University of
Jerusalem. He advances a radical new interpretation of the
founding of modern Israel. The founders claimed that they
intended to create both a landed state for the Jewish people and a
socialist society. However, according to Sternhell, socialism
served the leaders of the influential labor movement more as a
rhetorical resource for the legitimation of the national project of
establishing a Jewish state than as a blueprint for a just society. He
argues that socialist principles were subverted in practice by the
nationalist goals to which socialist Zionism was committed.40
Modern Zionism is more rooted in the 19th-century
nationalism of Eastern Europe, in Sternhell’s view, than it is in
anything in Jewish religious history.
What grew in Palestine, Sternhell writes, was a “tribal view
of the world.… What fell victim to national objectives was not
only the rights of workers but the very aims of socialism as a
comprehensive vision of a changed system of relationships
between human beings.… Ben-Gurion knew that a national
movement does not function in a void and that Palestine was not an
uninhabited territory.… From the beginning he was convinced that
settling Jews on the soil of Eretz Israel would mean a conquest of
land and a rivalry with Arabs.”
The ideology which dominates Israeli life today, Sternhell
argues, is precisely the same nationalist ideology which gave birth
to the state. He says that denial of the legitimacy of the Arab
national movement was not a form of blindness that afflicted only
Golda Meir. The prime minister at the time of the Yom Kippur
War (1973) was chosen as a successor to Levi Eshkol to ensure the
perpetuation of a worldview. Meir appealed to history as proof of
the legitimacy, morality and exclusivity of the Jewish people’s
right to the country – to the entire country. For her, there was room

for only one national movement in Palestine, i.e., Zionist

There was never any intention of allowing a ‘Palestinian national
movement’ or ‘Palestinian state’.41
(Backed by Nuclear Power)

We came and turned the native Arabs into tragic refugees. And
still we dare to slander and malign them, to besmirch their names.
Instead of being deeply ashamed of what we did and trying to undo
some of the evil we committed… we justify our terrible acts and even
attempt to glorify them.
Natyhan Chofshi, The Spectator, 12 May 1961


O NE should read a startling book, Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear

and Foreign Policies (1997) by Israel Shahak.
Shahak, a Jewish anti-Zionist and Israeli citizen, is a
prolific and hard-hitting writer who has incurred the wrath of those
he calls “the Israeli Jewish elite.” He stresses in his Introduction
that the aims of the State of Israel (and its predecessor the Zionist
Movement) at any given period of time have to be understood
according to what the Israeli leaders say to their followers, and now
especially to what they say to the Israeli Jewish elite. “They cannot
be understood according to what they say to the outside world.”1
He warns his readers that the “wish for peace,” so often
assumed as the Israeli aim, “is not in my view a principle of Israeli
policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence
is.” His key word is “hegemony,” or dominance over all states of
the Middle East.

The confirmation of these assertions will be found in the

book. In simple terms, Israeli policy is based on the Talmudic
threat and promise; that is, glorious peace or nuclear holocaust…
and other acts of terror, the latter not necessarily confined to the
Middle East.
In defining certain principles, Shahak stresses that Israeli
policies are based, first, on regional aspects – that is, the entire
Middle East from Morocco to Pakistan – and in addition they have
an important global aspect, especially prominent in the 1990s.
Shahak states that “in this book you will find much evidence that
Israel is quite involved in Kenya, South Korea and Estonia,
countries which are surely not a part of the Middle East! However,
I consider that Israeli policies outside the Middle East are
subordinated to Israeli regional aims.”2
He defines these two intertwined aims as (1) hegemony-
seeking and (2) support of the “stability” of most of the now
existing regimes in the Middle East, “with the notable exception of
Iran.” (Emphasis added.) Iran is the next targeted country to be
devastated in the Middle East; Iraq was first.
He regards the overthrow of the Iranian regime, “now a
chief Israeli aim,” as being justified, especially in the US, “with
claptrap about ‘fighting Islamic fundamentalism’ for the supposed
benefit of the West. This explanation, tamely accepted by many
US ‘experts’ is, in my view, obviously incorrect.”3
Shahak states that: “Israel has for years supported Hamas
and other Islamic fundamentalist groups against the PLO, when it
thought that such support would serve its interests.”
He flags the real reason for Israeli enmity to Iran – which
may yet lead to an Israeli assault on it – as “Israel’s hegemonic
aspirations.” He explains that a state aspiring to hegemony in an
area cannot tolerate other strong states in that area. If such a war is
waged against Iran, Shahak avers, it will undoubtedly be
represented for the benefit of the Western media as “War for the

Peace of the Middle East,” just as the invasion of Lebanon in 1982

was officially called by Israel “War for the Peace of Galilee.”
Although Palestinians are the first victims of Israeli
policies, and the people who have most suffered from them,
Shahak writes, the most important part of Israeli policies is not
concerned with the Palestinians. “Even a real peace between Israel
and the Palestinians will not lead to peace in the Middle East.”4
Shahak states that, on the contrary, although there is an
Israeli wish to keep the Palestinians quiet under a form of Israeli
control, this control is intended to promote its real policies… its
wish to topple the Iranian regime.
In its desire to establish hegemony over the Middle East, he
points to the distinct possibility of “an Israeli nuclear umbrella for
the Gulf” which is indeed supported by some strategists of Kuwait,
Quatar and Oman. Shahak refers to the prestigious Hebrew paper,
Haaretz, which carried an interview with Sammy Faraj, a Kuwaiti
strategy expert, who told the reporter that “provided Israel makes
peace with Syria, it should be included in an alliance which would
secure the peace in the Gulf by its [Israel’s] nuclear weapons.”5
In Shahak’s view, the establishment of Israel as the nuclear
power in the Gulf – supposedly to secure the Gulf states – is in
reality intended to acquire hegemony over them.
Shahak’s warning is clear: “[S]uch Israeli intervention in
the Gulf may lead to war against Iran - even a war in which nuclear
weapons will be used – from which untold calamities will ensue.”6
Finally, Shahak points to the key for carrying out Israeli
hegemonic policies, namely the Israeli influence over US policies
carried out through what is called the “Jewish lobby” in the US.
He says that: “especially under Clinton [that is] surely correct.”
(Clinton was called the ‘real Israeli ambassador in Washington’ by
an important Hebrew press commentator.) Shahak says that:
“Israel can influence the US not only because of the influence of

the ‘Jewish lobby’ (helped by Christian fundamentalists), but also

because Israel is, in itself, a strong state.”
Shahak gives us a chilling analysis of “Israeli official
ideology,” namely discrimination, amounting to a form of
apartheid. “Israel discriminates not only against Arabs, or only
against Palestinians… but against all non-Jews, including its best
non-Jewish friends,” he writes. “It follows from that official
attitude which Israel tries to inculcate among all its Jewish citizens
that Israel must regard even its best non-Jewish friends as its
potential enemies.”
A political conclusion follows from that ideological attitude:
there exists in Israeli policies a latent (and often a not-so-latent) hostility
toward its present allies. Thus, the Israeli claim that its hegemony is
intended to be exercised for the benefit of the West (by itself an absurd
claim if one considers the ‘normal’ behavior of states) cannot possibly be
true in the case of a state which officially defines itself as a ‘Jewish state’
and, as a point of principle, discriminates against all non-Jews.7
Shahak leaves us with a Francis Bacon quote: “Knowledge
is power.” The only way of avoiding Israeli hegemony, according
to the author of this exceptionally revealing book, is a detailed
knowledge of Israeli policies and the way they are presented to the
Israeli Jews. He warns us that “lack of knowledge is weakness.”
He also stresses that increased Israeli hegemony in the Middle East
will also be a disaster for Israeli Jews.
For a greater understanding of this bloody trail of
destruction and revenge, refer again to Shahak’s Jewish History,
Jewish Religion. Dr Noam Chomsky regards Shahak as “an
outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of
knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution
of great value.”8
Shahak speaks of a “closed Utopia” called the Jewish state
which will strive to achieve its “Biblical borders” over the near
time frame. To the initiated, those borders encompass not only the
tiny theocratic kingdom of Israel, but the Sinai and part of northern

Egypt, all of Jordan, a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait

(which until 1931 was part of Iraq), a part of Iraq south of the
Euphrates, all of Lebanon, all of Syria, a part of Turkey (up to Lake
Van), and the island of Cyprus.
Despite all the talks of peace between Israel and the
Palestinians, there will be no peace. Through what Shahak calls
“prejudice and prevarication” and a totalitarian history, the
Talmudic terrorists of Eastern Europe, now very much in charge,
not only in Israel, but in the twin fortresses of democracy in the
Western Hemisphere, namely the United States and Canada, will
slowly enclose much if not all of the Biblical borders.
These gangster-statesmen, similarly to their heroes who
conquered all of Russia earlier, want it all. David Ben-Gurion,
whom Shahak admired as a youth while living in a kibbutz back in
the 1950s, announced to the Knesset that the real reason for the
Suez War of 1956 was to restore the kingdom of David and
Solomon to its Biblical borders.9
And Prime Minster Benyamin Natanyahu had the identical
goal; however, he was badly defeated in a special election held on
17 May 1999 by Labor party challenger, Ehud Barak. In a news
analysis, the Washington Times (17 May 1999) indicated that
Barak, Israel’s leading “war hero,” would probably resume peace
talks with the Palestinians, and might even give up the territory
captured by Israel in the Six Day war. The prime minister
(Natanyahu) repeatedly warned that Jerusalem may be redivided
into Jewish and Arab sovereignties if Mr. Barak is elected.
According to the Times story, growing tribalism has made
Israel something far different from the unified nation that Zionist
founder, Theodor Herzl, and the first prime minister, David Ben-
Gurion, set out to build earlier this century.
Today, nearly 1 million Russian Jews, who emigrated after the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, hold the key to power in Israel and
possibly to stability in the volatile Middle East – a tinderbox of passions
that have fired disputes over land.… Sephardic Jews from Morocco,
many of whom swarmed into Israel in the early 1950s, resented the

economic and political clout of earlier arrivals from Poland and Russia,
who held the reins of power in Israel for decades.
Mr. Barak made a shrewd move by dropping the Labor Party
label – a name that many Jewish voters from Arab countries equate with
Israel’s Ashkenazi European elite.10
In a breakdown of “Israel’s political tribes,” the
Washington Times displayed the major divisions of Israel’s 6
million people. The Sephardim (the true Jews) make up 35% of the
electorate, while the Ashkenazim (the Jews who are not Jews, but
descendants of the fierce non-Semitic Khazars) – including those
of the former Soviet Union arriving since 1989 – comprise 44%.
Of the balance, 11% are the native Sabras, born in Israel; and the
Israeli Arabs, mainly living in Galilee in Northern Israel, are 11%
of the electorate.
Dateline, Jerusalem – 12 Nov 1998: In a Washington Post
story (13 Nov 1998), Lee Hockstader writes that: “Less than 24
hours after it ratified the latest US sponsored Middle East Peace
Plan, the Israeli government today took a decisive step toward
building a huge new Jewish neighborhood in the traditionally Arab
part of Jerusalem despite strong objections by the Palestinians and
the United States.”11
Prime Minister Benyamin Natanyahu had solicited bids
calling for the first thousand homes to be built in the project, which
will eventually be the new home of 30,000 Jews. Hockstader
points out that although the Palestinians are strongly opposed to the
development, it is unlikely to derail the land-for-security peace
plan, under which the Palestinians would gain control of chunks of
new territory in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, as well as the right
to use an airport in the Gaza Strip and other economic and political
The Oslo Accord of 1993 left the ultimate status of
Jerusalem, which Arabs and Jews alike regard as their rightful
capital, to be negotiated in a final round of talks between the two
sides. But Natanyahu has insisted that Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal

and indivisible capital, and that construction decisions here are

Israel’s exclusive prerogative.
“I’ve said it for the last two years. Har Homa will be built
by the year 2000,” Natanyahu told a group of foreign journalists.
“It’s an issue not only of community needs but of sovereignty.”12
Palestinian negotiator Hassan Asfour said, “If the Israeli
side continues in this way it means they want to lead the
relationship with Palestinians to confrontation.”13
Haim Ramon, a liberal Jewish member of the Labor Party,
said, “Netanyahu will try to sabotage the peace in any way that he
will find, because basically if you don’t believe in the process and
you don’t believe in your partner you cannot make peace.”14
Meanwhile, as reported in the same issue of the Post in an
article headlined “Support for US Stance on Iraq Grows,” Thomas
W. Lippman and Bradley Graham write:
The United States began deploying 139 heavy bombers and other
warplanes to the Persian Gulf region yesterday [12 Nov 1998], beefing up
its forces for possible air strikes against Iraq as administration officials
cited growing international support for its position that Baghdad must
resume cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.…
Clinton called the leaders of Germany, Sweden and Belgium
yesterday to discuss the situation. “What we hear in these calls is a united
international community,” said White House spokesman Joe Lockhart.…
At a news conference in Norfolk … [Sec Def William S.] Cohen
reiterated that the aim of US military action would be to ‘degrade’
Saddam Hussein’s ability to threaten his neighbors or produce chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons.15


Israel Shahak describes in grisly terms how the harsh
doctrine of the Halakhah was followed to the letter by the Israeli
soldiers as they advanced through enemy territory in southern
Lebanon in 1982. According to the Halakhah, the duty to save the
life of a fellow Jew is paramount, while, toward the Gentiles, the
basic Talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved,
although it is forbidden to murder them outright. This exhortation

was included in a booklet of the Central Region Command of the

Israeli Army (1973). In it, the Chief Chaplain writes:
When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot
pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are
incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may
and even should be killed.… Under no circumstances should an Arab be
trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized.… In a war,
when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed, and even enjoined by
the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are
ostensibly good.16
Why would a chaplain exhort the troops to murder?
Consider the original instructions as explained by Olivia Maria
O’Grady in Beasts of the Apocalypse. She transports us back in
time to Jehovah’s promise to Abram (Abraham) – a covenant that
was to be everlasting between Jehovah and Abraham’s seed:
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land
wherein thou art a stranger, all of the Land of Canaan for an everlasting
possession; and I will be their God.17
These then are our chosen allies for the coming war in the
Middle East. Surely, if they are carrying out the commands of the
mighty Jehovah as elucidated in the sacred writings of the Talmud,
we must be on the winning side… for… are we not as civilized?
Following one of his frequent visits from Israel to the
United States, Avinoam Bar-Yosef published an article in the 2
Sep 1994 edition of Ma’ariv, an influential Hebrew-language
newspaper published in Tel Aviv. The thrust of his article was that
Jewish political power in Washington had markedly increased
under the Clinton administration. “Indeed,” he wrote, “as far as the
Jews are concerned, President Bill Clinton has contributed toward
a real change in administration outlook, having concluded a series
of changes which enhance Jewish power, a process that began
under Reagan and his Secretary of State, George Schultz.”18
Bar-Yosef concedes that while Jewish influence was
evident in America for decades, citing Kissinger under Nixon, as

well as several cabinet members under Carter, they were

exceptions. “Especially, pious Jews were seldom appointed to
participate in political work concerning the Middle East.” 19
He informs his Israeli readers that “[T]he picture now has
totally changed, and not only about the Middle East.… In the
National Security Council seven out of 11 top staffers are Jews.
Clinton has especially placed them in the most sensitive junctions
in the US security and foreign policy slots. Samuel Berger is the
deputy chairman of the Council [since elevated to top slot]; Martin
Indyk (an Australian), the intended ambassador to Israel, is a senior
director in charge of the Middle East and South Asia; Dan Schifter,
senior director and adviser to the President, is in charge of Western
Europe; Don Steinberg, senior director and adviser to the
President, is in charge of Africa; Richard Feinberg, senior director
and adviser to the President, is in charge of Latin America; Stanley
Ross, senior director and adviser to the President, is in charge of
Bar-Yosef continues to drop names of important
personages in charge of the US government. “The situation is not
much different in the President’s office,” he reports, “which is full
of warm Jews; the new White House counsel, Abner Mikva; the
president’s program director, Ricki Seldman; deputy chief of staff,
Phil Leida; economic adviser, Robert Rubin; Ely Segal in charge of
volunteers; Ira Magaziner, in charge of the health program; Labor
Secretary Robert Reich and Mickey Kantor, in charge of
international trade agreements. They are joined by a long list of
senior Jewish officials in the State Department, headed by the chief
of the Middle East team, Dennis Ross, followed by many deputy
secretaries and senior chiefs of staff.”21
He stresses that the “enormous Jewish influence in
Washington” is not limited to the government, but includes “a very
significant part of the most important personages on the TV and
the senior media correspondents, newspaper editors and analysts
(who) are warm Jews too.”

Toward the end of his lengthy and informative article, Bar-

Yosef points to the Jewish predominance in academic institutions,
the National Institute of Health, in the fields of security and
science, in the film industry, in art and literature.
“The Jewish influence can only be described as immense,
with a corresponding enhancement of Jewish power,” Bar-Yosef
In its insatiable desire to establish absolute hegemony over
the Middle East, Israel (and the Zionist movement before 1948)
occasionally calls on its allies for assistance. It is an “open secret”
that its allies include Britain, United States, Russia, and to a lesser
degree, France.
In order to grasp the force and persuasiveness of what both
Israel Shahak and Avinoam Bar-Yosef called “Jewish power”
and/or the “Israeli Jewish elite,” let’s now examine certain related
facts which were contained in an article published by Eric D.
Butler in the February 1990 issue of the Australian monthly The
New Times, as well as in the prestigious journal of the Council of
Foreign Relations (CFR), “Foreign Affairs.”
Butler singles out President George Bush, backed by the
likes of Henry Kissinger and other such “advisers,” who sought to
solve the problems of the Middle East inside the framework of
what they called “a New World Order.” Butler emphasizes that all
the available evidence is progressively reinforcing the view of
those who believe that war (Desert Storm) was deliberately sought
by the top echelons of the Zionist movement.23
In his New York Times article, Butler stresses the growing
close relationship between Moscow and Washington (Bush and
Gorbachev), “The Soviet wanted military war in the Middle East,”
Butler says. “If they were genuinely opposed, they had the power
to prevent it by using their veto in the UN Security Council.”
Not only did the Soviet fail to use the veto, it also failed to warn
Saddam Hussein about the consequences of annexing Kuwait, even

though it had a strong contingent of military advisers in Iraq.

Simultaneously, it was fulfilling its agreement with the Zionist leaders to
permit the massive emigration of hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews to
Israel, a policy calculated to intensify the fears of the Arab world
concerning Israeli expansion.24
Former terrorist leader and Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzak
Shamir (Yezernitzki), planned to annex all of the Palestinian
territories occupied during the 1967 war, which had been
deliberately triggered by the Soviet strategists. To aid him in this
plan, he brought former army general Rehavm Ze’evi into his
cabinet. Ze’evi favored the “transfer” of the entire Palestinian
population out of Israel. The oppression of the Palestinians
became more severe, resulting in their becoming increasingly bitter
and desperate.
Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad officer, addressed this
factor in his chilling revelations about Mossad operations, By Way
of Deception:
The intifada and resultant breakdown of moral order and
humanity are a direct result of the kind of megalomania that characterizes
the operations of the Mossad. That’s where it all begins. This feeling that
you can do anything you want to whomever you want because you have
the power.
Israel is facing its biggest threat ever. This thing is
uncontrollable. In Israel, they’re still beating Palestinians, and Shamir
says ‘They’re making us become cruel. They’re forcing us to hit children.
Aren’t they terrible?’
That is what happens after years and years of secrecy, of ‘we’re
right, let’s be right, no matter what.…’ It is a disease that began with the
Mossad and has spread through government and down through much of
Israeli society. There are large elements inside Israel who are protesting
this slide, but their voices are not being heard. And with every step down,
it gets easier to repeat, and more difficult to stop.25


“The Road To War” was the title of a lengthy editorial
carried in the journal Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on
Foreign Relations, in the Spring of 1991. Here is an excerpt which
reveals in startling clarity the obvious intent of that organization to

subvert the Constitution of the United States and bring about a one-
world government under the United Nations:
Never before in American history was there a period quite like it.
For 48 days the United States moved inexorably toward war, acting on
authority granted by an international organization. On November 29,
1990, in an unprecedented step, the United Nations Security Council
authorized the use after January 15, 1991 of “all necessary means” to
achieve the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from the territory of Kuwait. On
January 12 the Congress of the United States authorized President Bush to
use American armed forces to implement that resolution. This too was
unprecedented. 26
What actions did the then President Bush take prior to such
a decision? Why did an equally culpable Congress put holy water
on his treasonous decision?
There is no question that George Bush, a Yale University
Skull and Bones initiate in 1947, has been under the thumb of the
CFR. Let’s examine some of his public utterances just prior to,
during and after the so-called Gulf War.
Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world
order – can emerge.… We are now in sight of a United Nations that
performs as envisioned by its founders.27
Let me give you this final message. If we use the military we can
make the United Nations a really meaningful, effective voice for peace
and stability in the future.28
I think that what’s at stake here is the new world order. What’s
at stake here is whether we can have disputes peacefully resolved in the
future by a reinvigorated United Nations.29
And that world order is only going to be enhanced if this newly-
activated peace-keeping function of the United Nations proves to be
effective. That is the only way the new world order will be enhanced.30
In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed
of by its founders.… I hope history will record that the Gulf crisis was
the crucible of the New World Order.31
The crowning glory (for Bush) came on 23 Sep 1991 when
he delivered his “pax universalis” speech at the UN. As John
McManus, president of the John Birch Society, reported, “He
placed our Nation on record as favoring UN military action to

settle ‘nationalist passions’ within the borders of any nation. He

even sanctioned the use of UN power to remove a nation’s

TO comprehend the term “sacred terrorism,” one must go to the

personal diary of a fervent but principled Zionist, Moshe Sharett
(Shertok) who was Israel’s first foreign minister and who, for two
years, replaced David Ben-Gurion as prime minister. Born in
Harsson, Russia in 1894, he emigrated with his family to Palestine
in 1904. During World War I, he served as an officer in the army
of the Ottoman Turks who then controlled Palestine. He would
later rise to a position of power as head of the Jewish Agency’s
political department under David Ben-Gurion, who was head of the
In her revealing work on the subject of Israel’s Sacred
Terrorism, Livia Rokach concentrates on Sharett’s entries in his
intimate personal diary which he wrote from October 1953 to
November 1956. The diary is a 2,400-page document in eight
volumes. It reflects the fundamental difference between Ben-
Gurion’s preference for the use of force, versus Sharett’s
preference for diplomacy. This conflict characterizes 25 years of
close collaboration at the very summit of the Zionist movement
and the state of Israel.
Popular support for the tiny state of Israel by such Western
countries as France, Britain, the United States, and, indirectly, by
the Soviet Union, has been based on a series of untruths,
sometimes referred to as myths, chief among them the myth of
Israel’s “security.” This has been the driving force behind the huge
amounts of public funds poured annually into the coffers of this
fascistic country to sustain it militarily and economically.
Such blatant propaganda, which reflects the Zionist
“sacred” right to a vast area of the Middle East, called “Greater
Israel,” has led from roughly 1917 until now to murderous and
continuous “sacred acts of terror,” revenge and retribution on the
part of the controlling element of Israeli society, to which Israel

Shahak and other Jewish writers refer as the ruling oligarchy of the
Israeli elite. In fact, as such other writers as Alfred Lilienthal and
Benjamin Freedman point out, this select group of terrorists,
murderers and thugs is comprised of “Jews who are not Jews,” that
is, not a Semitic people, but descendants of a Turko-Asiatic tribe,
the Khazars whom we earlier described in some detail. Their
profound and awe-inspiring abilities to use all imaginable (and
some unimaginable) terror tactics, coupled to a total disregard for
the morals and mores of the western peoples with whom they dwelt
(albeit as “a people apart”) was no passing fancy or exigency of the
moment, but a permanent and diabolical plan to rule the earth in its
Let’s concentrate for a moment on the contents of Moshe
Sharett’s diary, which was published in Hebrew in 1979, and is
now sealed to public exposure in the Israeli archives. While
portions leaked out before the Israeli government conviscated and
sealed the documents, the only source for the analysis of his
innermost thoughts (and abhorrence of the terror tactics of some of
his fellow Zionists) is Livia Rokach’s seminal work Israel’s
Sacred Terrorism in which she stresses the following points made
by the Israeli prime minister in his diary:
The Israeli political/military establishment never seriously
believed in an Arab threat to the existence of Israel. On the contrary, it
sought and applied every means to exacerbate the dilemma of the Arab
regimes after the 1948 war.
The Israeli political/military establishment aimed at pushing the
Arab states into military confrontations which the Israeli leaders were
invariably certain of winning. Its goal was radical transformation of
regional balance of power in order to transform the Zionist state into the
major Middle East power.34
In order to achieve their strategic purposes the following
tactics were used:
a) Large and small scale military operations aimed at
civilian populations across the armistice lines, especially in the

Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, then respectively

under the control of Jordan and Egypt. The double purpose was to
terrorize the civilians and to create permanent destabilization.
b) Military operations against Arab military installations
in border areas to undermine the morale of their armies and
intensify the regimes’ destabilization from inside the military.
c) Covert terrorist operations in depth inside the Arab
world, used both for espionage and to create fear, tension and
Further, Ms. Rokach stresses the following, garnered from
Sharett’s personal diary:
a) New territorial conquests through war, “a vital factor
in Israel’s transformation into the major regional power.”
b) Liquidate all Arab and Palestinian claims to Palestine
through the dispersion of the Palestinian refugees of the 1947-49
war to faraway parts of the Arab world.
c) Subversive operations designed to dismember the
Arab world, defeat Arab national movement, and create puppet
regimes which would gravitate to the regional Israeli power. 35
Ms. Rokach reveals that the diary “deals a deadly blow to a
number of important interpretations which are still being presented
as historical truths. Among them:
Most scholars and analysts cite nationalization of the Suez Canal
as chief motivation for the October 1956 war; however, Sharett tells us
that a major war against Egypt aimed at the territorial conquest of Gaza
and the Sinai was planned as early as 1953. It was agreed then by the
Israeli leaders that “international conditions for such a war would mature
in about three years.”
Later occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 was touted
as an Israeli defensive measure against Arab threats; however, Sharett’s
diary gives unequivocal evidence that occupation of Gaza and the West
Bank was part of Israel’s expansion plans since the early fifties.
Continuing violent Israeli aggressions against Lebanon is still
attributed, shamelessly, to Israel’s security needs. Israeli spokesmen,
echoed by the major western media, try to explain this massive

intervention and destruction in Lebanon with the following historical

a) In the “inevitable” struggle between Muslims and Christians,
the struggle would have broken out regardless of outside interference.
Israel was motivated by a desire to help “defend the Christian minority.”
b)The presence of Palestinian resistance, or in Israeli
terminology, of Palestinian terrorism, in that country required Israeli
Striking in candor was Sharett’s documentation of how in
1954 Ben-Gurion developed the diabolical plan to “Christianize”
Lebanon, i.e., to invent and create from scratch the inter-Lebanese
conflict, and how a detailed “blueprint for the partition and
subordination of that country to Israel was elaborated by Israel
more than 15 years before the Palestinian presence became a
political factor in Lebanon.”37
Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett summed up his
personal feelings regarding the use of terror and aggression to
provoke or create the appearance of an Arab threat to Israel’s
I have been meditating on the long chain of false incidents and
hostilities we have invented and on the many clashes we have provoked
which cost us so much blood, and the violations of the law by our men –
all of which brought grave disasters and determined the whole course of
events and contributed to the security crisis.38
A week earlier, Moshe Dyan, then Israel’s chief of staff,
explained why Israel needed to reject any border security
arrangements offered by the neighboring Arab states, or by the UN,
as well as the formal security guarantees suggested by the United
States. Such guarantees, he predicted, might “tie Israel’s hands.”39
The attacks and incursions across armistice lines by the
Israeli armed forces in the 1950s went under the euphemistic name
of “reprisal actions.” According to Dyan, these actions “help us to
maintain a high tension among our population and in the army… in
order to have young men go to the Negev we have to cry out that it
is in danger.”40

Livia Rokach’s fascinating prose is interspersed with

excerpts from Sharett’s diary and statements by his cohorts, all of
which provide incontrovertible proof of Zionist and Israeli base
treachery and inhuman brutality against its Arab neighbors, and
especially against the Palestinians who once lived a peaceful and
quiet and uneventful life in the land now called Israel. Her book
proves beyond any doubt that the faction made up of “Jews who
are not Jews” and “Christians who are not Christian” expects to
conquer and establish suzerainty over not only the lands that once
constituted Biblical Israel, but over the entire Middle East from
Morocco to Pakistan; i.e., the old Phoenician Empire. This fact is
corroborated by Israel Shahak in his voluminous writings.
To sum up her remarkable treatment of Israel’s Sacred
Terrorism, Rokach writes that “a strategic goal such as the
transformation of Israel into a regional power inevitably
presupposed the use of large-scale, open violence, and could not
pretend even mythically to be achieved on the basis of the earlier
moral-superiority doctrine which, therefore, had to be replaced
with a new one.” Terrorism and revenge were now to be glorified
as the new “‘moral…and even sacred’ values of Israeli society.”
In a historical perspective Sharett’s self-portrait as it emerges
from his personal diary, thus also explains why no so-called moderate
Zionist proposal is possible, and how any attempt to liberalize Zionism
from the inside could not but end in defeat.
In the early fifties the bases were laid for constructing a state
imbued with the principles of sacred terrorism against the surrounding
Arab societies;
On the threshold of the eighties the same state is for the first time
denounced by its own intellectuals as being tightly in the deadly grip of
fascism. 41
As a so-called moderate Zionist, Moshe Sharett’s lifelong
assumption has been that Israel’s survival would be impossible
without the support of the West, but that Western so-called
morality, as well as Western objective interests in the Middle East,
would never allow the West to support a Jewish state which
“behaves according to the laws of the jungle” and raises terrorism

to the level of a sacred principle. Rokach concludes her telling

work by stating:
“In the final analysis the West, and particularly the US, let itself
be frightened, or blackmailed into supporting Israel’s megalomanic
ambitions, because an objective relationship of complicity already existed
and because once pushed into the open this complicity proved capable of
serving the cause of Western power politics in the region. Just as
Zionism, based on the de-Palestinization and the Judaization of Palestine,
was intrinsically racist and immoral, thus the West, in reality, had no use
for a Jewish state in the Middle East which did not behave according to
the laws of the jungle, and whose terrorism could not be relied on as a
major instrument for the oppression of the peoples of the region. There
was a fatal but coherent logic in this newly acquired equation, which
would determine the course of future events.”42
Here is one of Sharett’s final entries in his diary, dated 4
Apr 1957:
I go on repeating to myself: nowadays admit that you are a loser!
They showed much more daring and dynamism…they played with fire
and they won.… Moral evaluations apart, Israel’s political importance in
the world has grown enormously.…43
(Mind Control by Propaganda)

All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual

level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it
intends to direct itself.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


A NY regime in power anywhere in the world recognizes the

necessity to control its population. We will discuss how this is
brought about through the control of the seven M’s (Money,
Media, Markets, Mind, Medical, Morals, Muscle), especially –
Money, Media, Muscle (Military). In conjunction with these three
M’s, particularly with a media monopoly, our fearful masters
manipulate our little minds. Let’s look more closely at this aspect,
for in its nether regions, we find the artful cunning of nearly 3,000
years of expertise in spinning the silky strands of propaganda.
A young computer nerd from London, Nick Leeson,
working for Barings Bank in Singapore, is given credit for racking
up $1.4 billion in derivative losses (which resulted in the collapse
of Barings in Feb 1995). Nick is currently serving time in a
Singapore prison for “the biggest trading disaster in the history of
financial markets.” We are to believe that this 28-year-old trader
who broke the bank (which had existed as a solvent institution for
232 years) accomplished its demise all by himself, according to
Stephen Fay, author of The Collapse of Barings (1997).
Fay states that because the manipulation of technology has
become so important, there is a huge gap between “computer nerds

and computer illiterates, for whom the future is a closed book.”

Will it happen again? “Of course it will. Somewhere, it – or
something like it – is happening now.”1
We will discover that there is a direct correlation between
financial manipulation and mind control. Both relate to absolute
control of the mechanism of deception and distortion in order to
indoctrinate the masses systematically and deliberately with
particular ideas, doctrines and practices so that a ruling regime can
maintain absolute coercive control over these selfsame masses.
Every man, woman and child – some sooner than later –
develops a theory of life, an understanding of how the world
works. Over time, our ideas coalesce into axioms, which Webster
defines as needing no proof because the truth is obvious. Alas,
public opinion has the power to twist a maxim or axiom into a
belief, which seems to be true or valid, but is in fact the antithesis
of truth. We know this technique as propaganda, which is any
systematic, widespread, deliberate indoctrination or plan for the
spread of ideas or customs from person to person or generation to
generation. Propaganda is generally used in a derogatory sense,
connoting deception or distortion.
Consider first our Constitution, which is a set of resolutions
hammered out in 1787 to govern our new union. It was then, and
could be today, our maxim for daily living; our code of honor, if
you will. It has over time been cleverly subverted to suit the aims
and principles and goals of an alien force within, who have used
the technique of propaganda to convince the masses to subscribe to
a contrived set of axioms – each of them false and most in direct
opposition to those truths embodied in our Constitution. We need
only examine the decisions of that august body, the Supreme
Court, over the past 40 years to grasp how blatantly the “supreme
law of the land” has been subverted.
Such manipulation of the public mind has brought us today
to a crisis of epic proportions so vast and all-pervasive that by the
end of this millennium most of us could be caught up in abject
slavery. This has been the goal of the Barbarians within since the

founding of our union in 1789, but was put on fast-forward at the

turn of the twentieth century to bring about in the year 2000 total
despotism over all the people of this once-Christian nation known
as the United States of America.
We saw in earlier chapters how such Christian countries as
Germany, Russia and Mexico were targeted for destruction by war
and revolution at the turn of this century, brought about by the two
world wars, both of which would have ended much earlier had it
not been for the manipulation of information, which caused the
purposeful entry of the United States into the fray, resulting in the
prolongation and extension of those wars. Here is Winston
Churchill addressing the subject in 1936:
America should have minded her own business and stayed out of
the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war, the Allies would have
made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace
then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by
Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany
would not have signed the Versailles Treaty which has enthroned Nazism
in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all of these ‘isms’
wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down
parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917,
it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other
lives. 2
Why didn’t we, the United States of America “mind our
own business” and stay out of what was just another European
squabble for commercial control of their continent, as well as the
high seas surrounding it?
We get an important clue from the New York Times for 24
Mar 1917. The blaring headlines alone of that edition tells us
much as to the political persuasion of those who wanted the United
States to get into the war:
“Pacifists Pester Till Mayor Calls Them Traitors”
“Socialists at Carnegie Hall Fail to Make Russian Celebration a
Peace Meeting”
“Rabbi Wise Ready for War”
“Kennan Retells History”

“How Jacob Schiff Financed Revolution Propaganda” 3

The occasion was the celebration of the Russian Revolution
at Carnegie Hall on the evening of 23 Mar 1917 (eight months
before the Bolshevik Revolution.) The mayor of New York City,
Marvin Mitchel, was the featured speaker. He was introduced by
the president of the Society of Friends for Russian Freedom,
Herbert Parsons, who informed the packed Hall that Mayor
Mitchel was a “man of a race that has also struggled for freedom.”
According to the New York Times, “The galleries were largely
filled with Socialists.”4
“We are gathered here,” the Mayor began, “to celebrate the
greatest triumph of democracy since the fall of the Bastille.” The
Times reports that there were some cheers. “America rejoices,” the
Mayor said. “How could she do otherwise when she sees power in
Russia transferred from the few to the many, and in the country
where there seemed the least hope of the cause of democracy
triumphing. America, the great democracy, is proud tonight
because democracy in Russia has supplanted the greatest oligarchy
that remained on the face of the earth.”
Then the Mayor stepped back and said: “But I submit we
have another reason to be proud. It is now inevitable, so far as
human foresight can make a prediction, that the United States is to
be projected into this world war and – ”
“No! No!” rolled the chorus from the galleries.
There was quiet for an instant. Then the audience
downstairs and in the boxes began to rise and a shout of ‘Yes!
Yes!’ answered the galleries.
“And when America does enter the contest,” shouted the
Mayor, “it will be to vindicate certain ideas as fundamental as
those on which the Republic was builded (sic), and among them
will be the cause of democracy throughout the world. Let us be
glad that, instead of fighting side by side with autocratic Russia, we
shall be fighting side by side with democratic Russia.”5

It was at this point that the galleries became so

demonstrative that Mitchel told them they must be Americans or
traitors. He then left the hall, followed by shouts of condemnation
and of praise.
The Mayor was followed at the podium by Rabbi Stephen
Wise, “a worker for world peace, but not an extreme pacifist,”
according to the New York Times article.
The Mayor is right when he says we are on the verge of war. I
pray God it will not come, but if it does the blame will not rest upon us,
but upon that German militarism which may it be given to the German
people to overthrow as the Romanoffs have been forever overthrown. I
cannot forget that I am a member and a teacher of a race of which half has
lived in the dominion of the Czar and as a Jew, I believe that of all of the
achievements of my people, none has been nobler than that part the sons
and daughters of Israel have taken in the great movement which has
culminated in the free Russia.6
George F Kennan, a sometime diplomat and future
ambassador to Russia, followed Rabbi Wise. He praised the work
of the Friends of Russian Freedom and pointed out that the
revolutionary movement “was financed by a New York banker you
all know and love,” referring to Jacob Schiff.7
Mr. Parsons then arose and said: “I will now read a
message from White Sulfur Springs sent by the gentleman to
whom Mr. Kennan referred.” Here is that message:
Will you say for me to those present at tonight’s meeting how
deeply I regret my inability to celebrate with the Friends of Russian
Freedom the actual reward of what we had hoped and striven for these
long years! I do not for a moment feel that if the Russian people have
under their present leaders shown such commendable moderation in this
moment of crisis they will fail to give Russia proper government and a
constitution which shall permanently assure to the Russian people the
happiness and prosperity of which a financial autocracy has so long
deprived them. Signed: Jacob H Schiff.8
This message from President Woodrow Wilson was then
The American ambassador in Petrograd, acting under
instructions from this government formally recognized the new

government of Russia. By this act the United States has expressed its
confidence in the success of and its natural sympathy with popular
government. Signed: Woodrow Wilson.9
And the rest, as they say, is history.
Thus is “public opinion” (propaganda) formed. Thus was
America subverted, not only when the above story appeared in the
New York Times in 1917, but throughout the rest of the century. It
is ongoing today.
Three members of the Royal Institute for International
Affairs in London led the way in the initial manipulation of public
opinion; Lord Northcliffe, Lord Rothermere and Arnold Toynbee.
They were aided by two Americans, Edward Bernays and Walter
Lippmann, dispatched to London in 1914 to work out the
techniques to bring about the support of the unthinking masses in
both Britain and the United States, which would cause the young
men especially to want to throw their bodies on the bayonets of the
“fearful Hun,” as the Germans were called by the propagandists
during World War I.
From this talented group of specialists emerged an
astounding revelation: only a very small group – something on the
order of 13% of any given population – will make use of a rational
thought process when confronting a problem, as opposed to 87%
who will merely pass an opinion on it. This applies to such grave
matters as waging war, as well as to any other problem facing
It is based on the fact that the human mind has a limited
capacity of thought; only so many problems and matters of
personal concern can occupy one person’s conscious thought. As a
new concern enters, an existing one must leave. What is true for
the individual is also true for a society. John Naisbitt outlines this
process in his methodology “Trend Report” which was developed
for a string of clients, such as General Motors, Chase Manhattan
Bank, the White House and the Harris polls.10

One can spot a trend in doing a content analysis of any

daily newspaper or periodical. Advertising is the driving force,
taking up most of the space in any periodical, leaving a limited area
for what the media call “news holes.” The space for “news” is
limited, and when some new event is introduced, others are
omitted. By controlling what goes into the “news holes,” one can
control public opinion, sometimes called popular opinion. The end
goal is not just the gamesmanship involved in manipulating
opinion, but in the creation of a mass of unthinking helots here in
America…like 87% of them.
Nielsen Media Research is the new name for an old
watchdog, A. C. Nielsen Co. It’s sort of a Big Brother, watching
what you watch on the idiot box. It provides audience estimates
and demographics on which most advertising agencies say they
have based their decisions for decades, according to a revealing
writeup in the Spotlight newspaper.11
Here is the anomaly. A 1997 TV Guide poll found that
more than half the viewers desire more moral and religious themes
on TV; yet, Nielsen Media Research, as well as other pollsters,
either ignore this factor, or by deliberate distortion and outright
rigging of ratings reach research data reflecting different
Their principal tool is the “peoplemeter” which Nielsen has
used for decades. This is a device the viewer turns on and then
codes with a record of who is “in the room” at the time of viewing.
Panel members, supposedly picked randomly, receive a one-time
compensation of $50 for having the device installed. Nielsen
currently has 5,000 such “panel members,” whose viewing choice
reflects the entire population of 200 million. Its list of panelists
and the formula it uses to determine ratings are secret.
How advertisers interpret these ratings is certainly
subjective at best. The Spotlight staff, in their accompanying
article, shows that the commercial media are under the economic

thumb of dictatorial ad agencies. Advertising is the lifeblood of all

media forms. As we will discover in the chapter on media
monopoly, to disregard the ad agencies and their political masters
is to court disaster.
Stephen Fox, author of The Mirror Makers (1984) brags
that Albert Lasker “flexed his advertising muscle on behalf of
Jewish interests” after the Saturday Evening Post ran an article that
criticized Jews. His powerful Madison Avenue ad agency pulled
all of its clients’ ads from the Saturday Evening Post, which led to
the financial collapse of what had been one of America’s most
successful magazines.12
The trend toward political correctness in media content
really took off after World War II, where advertisers seemed to
decide that such content as Western cowboy serials, family type
“humor pages” and uplifting articles were outdated and artificial.
Influenced by the ad agencies, the advertisers pulled large accounts
from popular media which did not reflect the political ideas desired
by the agencies. Blacklisted media went bankrupt, and the
remainder learned quickly to toe the line or be destroyed.
Due to mergers and globalization, there are now only two
huge umbrella advertising groups in America – Omnicom Group
and Interpublic Group. Both rank high in Standard and Poor’s 500,
each with assets over $4 billion. The Spotlight staff points out that
these umbrella groups use their expertise to maneuver public
opinion as a power tool and cultural apparatus in order to reshape
the world to their desired image.
David Acker and John Myers, in Advertising Management,
state that “advertisers using subconscious motives uncovered by
motivation research can manipulate an unwilling consumer.”
Whether in politics or in business, truth is no longer relevant,
winning is everything.13
There are two books still available which were published in
the 1920s, but whose subject matter is more than pertinent

currently. They deal with mass manipulation, and were written by

erudite and scholarly experts in their fields. Both evolved from the
wellspring of Babylonian Talmudism and the covenants contained
Walter Lippmann’s book Public Opinion, published in
1922, detailed the study in which he and Edward Bernays were
involved while in London during the First World War. It had to do
with creating pictures inside people’s heads, which were cunningly
and deliberately designed by expert craftsmen to mislead not only
individuals but entire societies. Lippmann describes the basics as
“PUBLIC OPINION with capital letters.” He wrote that “Public
opinion deals with indirect, unseen and puzzling facts, and there is
nothing obvious about them.” He also stressed that: “The picture
inside the head often misleads men in their dealings with the world
outside of their heads.”14
His colleague of those stimulating days in London, Edward
Bernays (whose relative by marriage, Murray Bernays, prepared the
scenario for the fraudulent Nuremberg Trials), also produced a
book, Crystallizing Public Opinion, and in 1928 published another
dealing with a continuation of the subject, appropriately titled
Propaganda. His helpmate in this endeavor was the master
manipulator and historian, H. G. Wells. It was the latter’s
contention that nations could be defeated, not by overt warfare, but
by the thought processes, e.g. propaganda and public opinion
formation, i.e., the manipulation of minds on a mass scale.15
Both Bernays and Wells believed in regimenting human
thought to the degree that an “invisible government” could take
over an increasingly complex civilization. Bernays revealed in
Propaganda that the conscious and intelligent manipulation of
organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important
technique in a democratic society.
“Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power
in our country,” Bernays wrote in 1928. “It remains a fact that in
almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics

or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are

dominated by the relatively small number of persons (who) pull the
wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces
and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.…”16
For his epic work, Bernays was handed CBS by his
controllers, most of them centered in the newly-formed Council of
Foreign Relations, an offshoot of the Royal Institute for
International Affairs (RIIA) which sprang from the fertile loins of
the Round Table in Britain. Bernays was replaced by his
understudy, William Paley, who has carried that media firm to new
heights of popular-opinion formulation.
In a broad philosophic sense, in order to get a grasp of what
is happening to us individually and as a nation, we must understand
the terms “existentialism” and “nihilism.” They are the antithesis
of Christianity.
“Existentialism” springs from the French exister, to be, or
actual being. The notorious and prolific writer Jean-Paul Sartre
popularized this literary-philosophic cult of nihilism and
pessimism in France after World War II. It holds that each man
exists as an individual in a purposeless universe, and that he must
oppose the hostile environment through the exercise of his free
“Nihilism” is the denial of the existence of any basis for
knowledge or truth, and thus rejects customary beliefs in religion
or morality. Politically, it holds that all social, political and
economic institutions must be completely destroyed in order to
pave the way for new institutions (a New World Order). It
advocates revolutionary reform such as took place in Russia and
Mexico during the first 20 years of this century. It was the
prevailing philosophy of the Bolsheviks who set out to destroy the
world in order to rebuild it according to their satanic blueprint, as
embodied in the 63 books of the Babylonian Talmud; and, more

recently, in their “Blueprint for Conquest,” circa 1897, better

known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
Nihilism as a political movement relies on a combination of
brutal assassinations and calculated acts of terror to foment violent
and bloody revolution.
Such acts as the terror-bombing of the World Trade Center
in New York followed by the Federal Building in Oklahoma City
in 1995, have been integral parts of this psychological ploy to
condition peoples’ dependency on government and its law
enforcement agencies (gestapo). Question: Will a national police
force constitute a KGB operative? You bet it will.
Included and very much a part of this overall strategy is the
Talmudic terror tactic of the assassinations and attempted
assassinations of Pope John Paul II, Indira Ghandi of India by her
son, Rajiv; and in the 1960s, of President Kennedy and Charles de
Gaulle, as well as Bobby Kennedy and Malcolm X.
The driving force behind all of these acts of terror and
brutal assassinations is nihilism and existentialism, as embodied in
various secret societies, global in scope, and subordinate to
International Zionism and Fabian Socialism joined together in the
unholy writ of French Grand Orient/Scottish Rite Freemasonry. Its
communications net worldwide comprises the 267 Freemasonic
Lodges of B’nai B’rith, which relies on its sub-agency, the Anti-
Defamation League for closely monitoring the activities of all
possible elements in the United States which might rise up against
its grand design for world conquest.
This then becomes the raison d’être for the media barrage
against such organizations as citizens’ militias, patriot groups,
Christians and Muslims. By the adroit use of agents provocateur
and by burrowing within any and all patriotic groups, attention can
be directed immediately toward various patriot and Christian or
Moslem groups as the perpetrators of acts of terror and

IN 1843, in Charleston, SC, a group of Jewish land-owners and

slave-owners, working closely with British businessmen and
bankers, as well as with US citizens still loyal to the Crown of
Britain, formed a separate lodge of Scottish Rite Freemasonry
which they called B’nai B’rith.
Another “invisible” society, L’Alliance Israelite
Universelle, was founded in 1860. Its president for nearly 20 years
was a French citizen and businessman, Adolph Cremieux. Its
stated purpose was to be the political government of the Jewish
“nation,” comprised of all Jews from wherever they resided, and
coming under the authority of the secret kahal or community rule.
Cremieux was the link between the Alliance and the Grand Orient
Masonic organization. Its avowed aim of bringing a super-
government of the world under Jewish control was inculcated into
the world Zionist movement of 1897 and is today being pursued by
the Jewish World Congress (headed by Edgar Bronfman in the
In 1857, a Jewish rabbi, Jacob Brafmann, became a
Christian. He produced two books, The Book of the Kahal (1869)
and The Jewish Brotherhoods (1868). Brafmann, who professed
Judaism until the age of 34, was asked by Czar Alexander II in
1860 to develop a means of overcoming the obstacles to the
conversion of Jews to Christianity. He was joined by other
“enlightened Jews.” Together, they researched both the Kahal
(civil administration) and the Beth-Dins (Talmudic law courts).
They reveal that these documents show that Jews must abide by the
Kahal and Beth-Din, even in contradistinction to the public law
and their own conscience.17
The Kahal, for example, states that the Jews have the right
(Hasaka) to the real estate and appurtenances of any gentile. This
led to suppression of the Jewish Kahal by a circular of 1867, the

formation of the “nihilists,” and to the assassination of Czar

Alexander II in March 1881 by a Jewish nihilist. President
Garfield would be assassinated in September of that same year by a
like-minded person.
As depicted in Robert Wilton’s 1920 suppressed volume,
The Last Days of the Romanovs, Czar Nicholas II, his wife and
children, would also be assassinated by a Jewish cabalistic group in
1918. These murderers were followers of the cabala, an occult
religious philosophy developed by Jewish rabbis, based on
mystical interpretation of the Scriptures. (See Dogme et Rituel de
la Haute Magie by Eliphas Levy.)18
The assassins left behind an inscription of the letter “L”;
one called lamed in the cursive handwriting of ancient Hebrew,
followed by the letter lamed in Samaritan script; and the third
letter, the Greek lambda. The use of the letter “L” symbolizes the
heart (lamed) which is located between the liver (kaph) and the
brain (mem). According to the ancients, the heart is king of the
body (melek-king). We find symbolically the first letter of each,
“m,” “l,” and “k.”
The cabalistic meaning of the inscriptions on the wall:
“Here the King was sacrificed to bring about the destruction of his
Then, as now, we are dealing with a cabalistic group
operating under the command of occult forces who resort to
ancient cabalistic power in order to bring about the destruction of
existing power structures. We saw it most clearly in the
assassination of Premier Yitzhak Rabin in Israel (4 Nov 1995)
which had been ordered by a New York Jewish rabbi and carried
out by a young so-called extremist, Yigal Amir, but with the
blessings of the Likud party and such stalwarts as the “Butcher of
Lebanon,” Gen Ariel Sharon. Such machinations led to placing a
pseudo-American, albeit with close ties to the ADL, one Benyamin
Netanyahu (aka Barry Sullivan in the US), on the exalted throne of
Israeli Prime Minister. Call him melek (king).

We also saw it (or heard it) on the night of 2 May 1934 in

a radio address by Representative Louis T. McFadden when he
spoke of “The Organization of British Slavery or Fabian
Socialism.” He tied in the “political and economic planning”
(PEP) of the Fabian Socialists in England with the “new policy” of
FDR under the National Recovery Act (NRA). He referred to a
tract published in 1918 by Adolf Berle, “The Significance of a
Jewish State” (dedicated to his friend Justice Louis Brandeis).
Berle, who became a confidant and advisor to FDR, regarded the
Jew as “the barometer of civilization at all times.” He pointed to
the inability of Christianity to avert war, and seemed to think that
the Jews were the only power who could do anything about it. He
discussed the “new policy” as being part and parcel of the Fabian
Society of England, drawn up by Israel Moses Seiff (director of the
Marks & Spencer chain stores in England) who relied almost
exclusively on slave-labor imports from Soviet Russia in order to
undersell his competitors. Representative McFadden emphasized:
It would be a monstrous mistake for any intelligent citizen of
whatever nation to close his eyes to the evident fact that for nigh sixty
years, the Jews have surely and rapidly though almost invisibly climbed to
the heights of government wherefrom the masses are ruled. Politically,
financially and economically they have seized the reins of the
governments of all nations and their invasion in the realms of social,
educational and religious fields is not less important.20


Two revealing books dealing with the Bolshevization of
Mexico were published in 1935. One of them, No God Next Door
by Rev Michael Kenny, SJ, has recently been republished by GSG
& Associates.
“Russia on the Rio Grande” and “Our Bolshevist Border”
were frank descriptions of the Mexican government when the book
first came out, and still hold true over 70 years later. Father Kenny
states that the administrative system was more ruthlessly planned
and executed, and more destructive of law and liberty and every
elemental right, human and divine, than the reddest and rawest
gulag that Lenin and Stalin inflicted on humanity.21

In a chapter on “The Calles Plan to Capture Consciences,”

Kenny details the psychological spin and diabolical tactics used by
Plutarco Elias Calles, a Jewish émigré from Poland who
“Latinized” his name and reigned supreme south of the border for
ten years (1924-34) as “El Jefe Maximo de la Revolucion” – the
Supreme Chief of the Revolution.22
We see how Calles used the techniques of forming public
opinion by propaganda and mind manipulation, applying
Moscow’s atheizing methods in his Bolshevist plan to destroy
Christianity and the educational system in Mexico.
He addressed the entire people of Mexico from the
Governor’s Palace on 20 Jun 1925:
The Revolution had been realized,” he said, “in the definite
ideology of President Rodreguez and his similarly ideological successor
Cardenas, but has yet to be completed and made permanent in the
psychological period which the Revolution has now entered. We must
enter into consciences and take possession of them; the conscience of the
children and the conscience of the youth; for youth and child must belong
to the Revolution.23
In another book, Blood-Drenched Altars by Msgr. Francis
Clement Kelley (1935), was a Catholic commentary on the history
of Mexico. Kelley was well versed in the 19th-century repression
of Christianity in that country. The conquest of Montezuma and
the Aztec Indians by the Spanish ended a reign of terror by the
Aztecs over other Indian tribes, highlighted by cannibalism and
human sacrifice. Spain ruled Mexico for 300 years (1521-1821)
and raised that country to equality with European countries,
producing a flourishing and prosperous Catholic civilization,
complete with universities, hospitals, orphanages and institutions
for the care of the poor.
All this practicing Christianity was swept away in the
wanton devastation planned and carried out by Scottish Rite
Freemasonry, centered in the United States, extending from 1810
to 1928, with but one peaceful interlude of 35 years (1876-1911)
during the rule of Porfirio Diaz, who stopped the Masonic-
instigated revolutions and established order and tranquillity.24

The result of the series of revolutions has been that Mexico,

despite her former prosperity and resources at least equal to those
of the United States, became abjectly poor; and despite her
population being almost entirely Catholic, was forced to suffer
bitter and virulently anti-Catholic governments; and that Mexico,
despite proclaiming itself a democratic republic, is governed by
one party, which alone possesses the “right” to rule.
That same clique set out to destroy both sovereignty and
Christianity in France, Spain, Germany, Russia and the United
States, following our revolution of 1776-83. We saw earlier how
the Babylonian Talmud was the source for Weisshaupt’s Illuminati
which invaded many of the Masonic lodges of Europe and worked
its tentacles into the United States. The results of such massive
destruction are embodied in what the Christian Science Monitor, in
a front-page editorial (19 Jun 1920) called “The Jewish Peril,” also
known as The Protocols of Zion, which surfaced in 1905.25
There was an earlier Protocol which appeared in a French
newspaper about the same time as the editorial in the Christian
Science Monitor. “The Fatal Discourse of Rabbi Reichhorn”
appeared in the French newspaper La Vielle France (21 Oct 1920
and 10 Mar 1921). “There is a striking analogy between the
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and the discourse of the
Rabbi Reichhorn, pronounced in Prague in 1869 over the tomb of
the Grand Rabbi Simeon-ben-Ihuda… the general ideas formulated
by the Rabbi are found fully developed in the Protocols.” Key
details follow (emphases in original):
Every hundred years, We the Sages of Israel, have been
accustomed to meet in Sanhedrin in order to examine our progress toward
the domination of the world which Jehovah has promised us, and our
conquest over the enemy – Christianity.
Gold always has been and always will be the irresistible power.
Handled by expert hands it will always be the most useful lever for those
who possess it, and the object of envy for those who do not. With gold
we can buy the most rebellious consciences, can fix the rate of all values,
the current price of all products, can subsidize all State loans, and
thereafter hold the states at our mercy.

The other great power is The Press. By repeating without

cessation certain ideas, the Press succeeds in the end in having them
accepted as actualities. The Theatre renders us analogous services.
Everywhere the Press and the Theatre obey our orders.
By the ceaseless praise of Democratic Rule we shall divide the
Christians into political parties, we shall destroy the unity of Nations, we
shall sow discord everywhere. Reduced to impotence, they will bow
before the Law of our Bank, always united and always devoted to our
We shall force the Christians into wars by exploiting their pride
and their stupidity. They will massacre each other and will clear the
ground for us to put our own people into.
The possession of the land has always brought influence and
power. In the name of Social Justice and Equality we shall parcel out the
great estates; we shall give fragments to the peasants who covet them with
all their powers, and who will soon be in debt to us by the expense of
cultivating them. Our Capital will make us their masters. We in our turn
shall become the proprietors, and the possession of the land will assure
the power to us.
Let us try to replace the circulation of gold with paper money;
our chests will absorb the gold, and we shall regulate the value of the
paper which will make us masters of all positions.
By gold and by flattery we shall gain the proletariat which will
charge itself with annihilating Christian capitalism. We shall promise the
workmen salaries of which they never dared to dream, but we shall raise
the price of necessities so that our profits will be greater still.
In this manner we shall prepare Revolutions which the Christians
will make themselves and of which we shall reap the fruit.
By our mockeries and our attacks upon them we shall make their
priests ridiculous, then odious, and their religion as ridiculous and as
odious as their clergy. Then we shall be masters of their souls.
We have already established our own men in all important
positions. We must endeavor to provide the goyim with lawyers and
doctors; the lawyers are au courant with all our interests; doctors, once in
the house, become confessors and directors of consciences.
But above all, let us monopolize Education. By this means we
spread ideas that are useful to us, and shape the children’s brains as suits

Let us take care not to hinder the marriage of our men with
Christian girls, for through them we shall get our foot into the most
closely locked circles.
For ages past, the sons of Israel, despised and persecuted, have
been working to open up a path to power. They are hitting the mark.
They control the economic life of the accursed Christians; their influence
preponderates over politics and over manners.
At the wished-for hour, fixed in advance, we shall let loose the
Revolution, which by ruining all classes of Christianity will definitely
enslave the Christians to us. Thus will be accomplished the promise
Jehovah made to his People.26

A Soviet textbook on mass mind-control called Psychopolitics has

a direct bearing on our subject of take-over by an enemy within, for
two basic reasons:
(1) Psychopolitics is being practiced on a concerted and
daily basis here in the United States;
(2) Its techniques and tactics dovetail perfectly with what
Douglas Reed calls “the Blueprint for Conquest” in his seminal
work The Controversy of Zion.
Our soldiers captured by the North Koreans and the
Chinese in their attack against the South in 1950-53 were subjected
to the process called “brainwashing” by their captors. This in fact
was nothing more nor less than the use of the Soviet Bolshevik
tactics of mind-control or psychopolitics. The pattern used against
the individual prisoners included the triad of degradation, shock
and endurance. Important to recognize – it works! In fact, as
stated in Chapter VIII of the Soviet textbook, “Degradation and
conquest are companions.”
Let’s consider a synthesis of the 14 chapters of this
amazing and chilling work by a cabal of evil men whose current
and ongoing goal is total subjugation of all peoples throughout this
planet. Their goal is stated in the summation:
The end of war is the control of a conquered people. If a people
can be conquered in the absence of war, the end of war will have been
achieved without the destruction of war. A worthy goal.27
Each year during the 1930s a handpicked group of
American students traveled to Moscow to attend an indoctrination
course at Lenin University in Moscow. Stalin’s chief thug, one
Lavrenti Beria, chief of the secret police, welcomed the students in

American students at the Lenin University, I welcome your

attendance at these classes in Psychopolitics.
Psychopolitics is an important if less known division of
Geopolitics. It is less known because it must necessarily deal with highly
educated personnel, the very top strata of ‘mental healing’
By Psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward.
To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first
most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic
depression and scientific turmoil. At last a weary populace can seek
peace only in our offered Communist state.…
You must labor until we have dominion over the minds and
bodies of every important person in your nation. You must achieve such
disrepute for the state of insanity and such authority over its
pronouncement that not one statesman so labeled could again be given
credence by his people. You must work until suicide arising from mental
imbalance is common and calls forth no general investigation or remark.
You must dominate as respected men the fields of psychiatry and
psychology. You must dominate the hospitals and universities.…
Psychopolitics is a solemn charge. With it you can erase our
enemies as insects. You can cripple the efficiency of leaders by striking
insanity into their families through the use of drugs…you can change their
loyalties by Psychopolitics.…
Use the Courts, use the judges, use the Constitution of the
country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends.…
By Psychopolitics create chaos. Leave a nation leaderless. Kill
our enemies. And bring to Earth, through Communism, the greatest peace
man has ever known.…


The returning students found fertile ground in which to sow
their seeds of psychopolitics and mass mind control in the
hallowed halls of academe, in the not-so-hallowed halls of the
diverse governmental bureaucracies flourishing in Washington, DC
under the benevolent imperium of FDR and his New Deal, and
throughout the media, especially in the propaganda mills of
Hollywood during and after WW II.
There are two highly important documents recently made
available by former government agents involved in creating

“Manchurian Candidates,” also known as “sleepers,” who are

mind-controlled and programmed individuals, some at the highest
levels of government. Others are created for a single special
mission, such as the assassination of a key personality, or the
takeout of a particularly strong presidential candidate who might be
a threat to the chosen candidate of the power brokers. That
technique is referred to as “neutralization.” It can involve
coercion, intimidation, or actual killing.
One report, “Mind Control in America: Five Easy Steps to
Create a Manchurian Candidate,” details the CIA “Operation Open
Eyes,” which locates and selects personnel to be used as
“sleepers.” The procedure begins at Level One to determine, under
heavy hypnosis, the future value of the candidate. A recall
command and a trigger word is written into the personality. Level
2 hypnosis is used on those who pass certain tests, at which time
specific instructions are written into the personality.28
Advancing to Level 3 hypnosis for a few with higher IQs, a
new identity, called an “overwrite,” is created, and the original
personality is repressed or hidden under the overwrite. This is the
technique used on field operatives to prepare them for a deadly
covert mission.
For those with still higher IQs (130-140), a subject will be
brought to “The Farm,” or one of the numerous facilities
throughout the US and Canada, where the subject undergoes Level
4 hypnosis. At this stage, the subject is told that he is superhuman;
he no longer differentiates between right and wrong. His moral
code, respect for the law, and fear of dying are replaced with new
superhuman feelings; i.e., he is now a mortal god, who is beyond
all human laws. In the CIA vernacular, he is now a “Clear Eyes.”29
The report states that many politicians and government
officials on a world-wide level have been brought in to the “Clear
Eyes” level, where their own beliefs are replaced with the agenda
of the programmers.
President Clinton is an example of a world leader who has been
programmed with this technique. Senator John McCain and Secretary of

State Madeleine Albright are two other examples of an ‘agenda overlay’

being ‘overwritten’ onto the subject’s own personality. Their own
personalities and memories are still present, although childhood and early
adolescent memories are sometimes erased.30
A few subjects, who have been so chosen, then advance to
Level 5, a “programmed sleeper assassin.” At this level, a code
word, sequence of numbers, or a voice imprint is etched into the
subject’s brain. This is the trigger which will activate the subject
at the critical time a murder or assassination is to be committed.
Because of the programming, the subject will not be able to
associate with the crime. In most cases of programmed “Clear
Eyes” who commit murders or assassinations, the agent is killed on
the spot, or self destructs.31
The other report is on Project Mirror, still classified above
top secret. It was formulated at the National Security Agency
(NSA), the electronic spook facility located at Fort Meade,
Maryland. It was (and probably still is) a covert operation
involving up to 30 special operatives who would work together to
liquidate certain foreign leaders about the world. The mind-control
techniques in this project were similar to those of other code-
named operations, such as Project Blue, which was the Johnstown,
Guyana massacre of the entire cult of James Warren Jones.32
Yet another report, named after the attorney, Paul Wilcher,
who prepared it, details the mass murder at Ranch Apocalypse out
of Waco, Texas in 1993. Paul Wilcher later disappeared. His body
was discovered in his Washington, DC apartment. The 100-page
report which he prepared, and planned to present to Attorney
General Janet Reno, also disappeared, along with his records and
computer hard drive; however, the report surfaced through the
good offices of a well-known Washington, DC reporter (purposely
unnamed), who held a duplicate copy of the document.33
Here, as tersely as possible, are the ongoing
implementations of that Blueprint for Conquest, which in fact

constitute crimes of the most heinous magnitude against this

nation, its Constitution and its peoples:
In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it
into a state of bewilderment… to multiply national failings so that it will
be impossible for anyone to know where he is in the resulting chaos…
If any state raise a protest against us, it is only pro forma at our
discretion and by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is indispensable to
us for management of our lesser brethren…
It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in
our service persons of all opinions… each one of them is boring away at
the last remnants of authority…
Then it was that we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a
government, by a president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our
puppet creatures, from our slaves…
We shall establish the responsibility of presidents… to prepare
unification under our sovereign rule…
The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will elect
presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new laws, for this
right will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our
The key of the shrine shall be in our hands… no one outside
ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation…
We shall emasculate the universities…
The complete wrecking of the Christian religion will not be long
The recognition of our despot will come when the peoples,
utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence of their rulers, will
clamor: ‘Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will
unite us and annihilate the causes of discords…’
We will discover in the following chapter just how a
covenant of race superiority is leading us down the slippery slope
to a repressive one-world socialist government, with a very few of
the superior or chosen ones in total charge, and the vast balance of
mankind leveled out at the bottom as helots, slaves and/or “worker
(The Coming Kingdom of Darkness)

And he (Moses) was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights;
he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the
tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Exodus XXXIV, 28


A T critical times throughout history the original Covenant

between Moses and Jehovah, forged eons ago on a
mountaintop in the Sinai Desert, has been systematically attacked,
eroded, neglected and purposely forgotten and/or altered to suit the
needs of some political faction attempting to seize power from
We saw evidence of that in 1638 when the Presbyterians of
Scotland agreed to a National Covenant that opposed episcopacy.
This led to the First Bishops’ War in Scotland, wherein Charles I,
king of both England and Scotland, accused the Scots of seeking to
overthrow royal power. The Covenanters launched an attack,
taking Edinburgh, Dumbarton and Stirling. The war quickly
ended, with Charles signing the “Pacification of Berwick,” which
abolished episcopacy in Scotland. In 1643, at the height of the
English Civil War, the Parliaments of England and Scotland agreed
to the Solemn League and Covenant that extended and preserved
Presbyterianism in England.1
The Second Bishops’ War in 1640 saw the Covenanters of
Scotland crossing into England and defeating Charles’ forces,
leading to theTreaty of Ripon. Two years later, Charles attempted

to arrest five members of The Commons and failed. He fled with

his family to Hampton Court.
The English Civil War began in 1642. Charles’ supporters,
the Cavaliers, took Marlborough; his opponents, the Roundheads
under Oliver Cromwell, seized Winchester. The Roundheads
(Covenanters) consistently defeated the Royalist forces until the
Civil War ended in 1646. Charles I was imprisoned but escaped.
The Scots began a Second Civil War in 1648, and were defeated.
Parliament voted to bring the King to trial, which opened 19 Jan
1649. The following day, Charles I was beheaded. This led to
Oliver Cromwell’s becoming Lord Protector. In 1655, Cromwell
dissolved Parliament and divided England into 11 districts, each
with a major general as governor. He also prohibited Anglican
Let’s now shift the scene and the time to France, 1789: the
beginning of the French Revolution; the script remains the same,
i.e., murder the monarch and mortally wound the Church.
Mirabeau emerged as a national figure; the Paris mob stormed the
Bastille, freed seven prisoners; the National Assembly took over all
Church property, issued assignats (paper money) against it. In
1790, King Louis XVI accepted a new constitution. The following
year, Mirabeau was elected president of the French Assembly.
King Louis tried to escape, was caught and returned to Paris. In
1792, the royal family was imprisoned and a French Republic
proclaimed (22 Sep): Jacobins under Danton seized power; trial of
Louis XVI; France declared war on Austria, Prussia and Sardinia.
In 1793, Louis was beheaded; Committee of Public Safety
established with Danton at its head; Reign of Terror began; Roman
Catholicism banned in France; Queen Marie Antoinette
guillotined; Holy Roman Empire declared war on France, US
proclaims its neutrality; French troops driven out of Germany.
Danton and Robespierre were executed, followed by mass killings;
“Feast of the Supreme Being” celebrated in Paris. These
momentous events of both joy and murder were followed in 1795
by bread riots and the “White Terror” in Paris; Napoleon appointed

commander-in-chief; married Josephine de Beauharnais in 1796.

They lived unhappily ever after.
Another shift both in time and place.… Russia, 1917: the
beginning of the Russian Revolution; the script remains the same,
i.e., murder the monarch, mortally wound the Church – these
events were discussed at length in previous chapters.
At the height of this Bolshevik massacre, the infamous
Versailles Treaty (1919) formally ended the Great War. The first
section of the Treaty of Versailles was called “The Covenant of the
League of Nations.” It was in fact the constitution of the League of
Nations. It insured that two, and only two, dissident elements – the
Bolsheviks of Soviet Russia and the Zionist movement planning
the seizure of Palestine – would benefit. For clarification of the
latter element, again refer to Facts are Facts by Benjamin
Freedman, who was a liaison between Henry Morgenthau, Sr., and
the Wilson administration.3
Could it be possible that these revolutionary historical
events may be played again in Russia; and even here in the United
States, with perhaps the dissolution of Congress and establishment
of ten (or 11, again) districts under FEMA control? Could
Clinton’s New Covenant lead to such a repetition? Before
answering, let’s examine further some of the weak links in the
corroded chain leading back to Moses on the Mount and the
“eternal” Covenant.
“To what extent (if at all) does natural law entail religious
liberty?” This was the lead question of a most thoughtful and
provocative article by Robert D. Hickson in Chronicles magazine
(Dec 1998). Hickson is an instructor at the United States Military
Academy. Another of his thought-provoking questions: “at the
heart of the concept and reality of religious liberty.… What is
freedom and what is freedom for?”4

He referred to an article by Tom Wolfe (author of Bonfire

of the Vanities), entitled “The Meaning of Freedom.”
Appropriately, the essay appeared as the lead article in Parameters
(Mar 1988), published by the Army War College.
Wolfe’s article looked at the four phases of American
freedom. We are now, he wrote, in the fourth phase, which is
highly pertinent especially to all military personnel. Wolf writes:
The fourth phase is freedom from religion. It is not freedom of
religion; it is freedom from religion.…5
Gone is the conception so aptly described by Alexis de
Tocqueville in 1835, in which he described American democracy
as “the freest form of government in the world.” He attributed this
to the internal discipline of the American people, rooted in their
profound devotion to religion.
Wolfe says, “What we are now seeing is the earnest
rejection of the constraints of religion… not just the rules of
morality but even simple rules of conduct and ethics.…”6
What we are now seeing is the total rejection of the
“eternal” covenant, and its replacement by a “new” man-made and
man-centered covenant. Wolfe homes in on his military audience:
You (the American military) are going to find yourselves
required to be sentinels at the bacchanal. You are going to find yourself
required to stand guard at the Lucullan feast against the Huns approaching
from outside. You will have to be armed monks at the orgy.7
“If I use religious terminology,” Wolfe writes, “I use it on
purpose. One of the most famous addresses ever delivered in this
century by an American was the address of 12 May 1962 by
Douglas MacArthur at West Point, in which he enunciated the
watchwords of Duty – Honor – Country.”
. . . He said that the soldier, above all other men, is expected to
practice the greatest act of religion: sacrifice.8
And it is here that Hickson makes his most cogent point:
“But these Huns, ‘approaching from outside’ are also approaching

from ‘within.’” He quotes Whittaker Chambers (Cold Friday,

It (communism) seeks a molecular re-arrangement of the human
mind. It promotes not only a new world. It promotes a new kind of man
[i.e., the ‘revolutionary, democratic personality’, not the ‘authoritarian
personality’]. The physical revolutions which it once incited and now
imposes, and which largely distract our attention, are secondary to this
internal revolution which challenges each man in his mind and spirit.9
Hickson concludes his exceptionally fine article with a
quote from Augusto del Noce’s interview with a Madrid
newspaper (1976) on Euro-Communism and other indirect variants
of cultural subversion:
The conquest of power can no longer be achieved by traditional
revolutionary means. Civil society must first be conquered, and then the
state will collapse.… In Italy, all the essentials are under control; the
publishing houses, the schools, quite a few universities, the judiciary. The
confrontation in the fight to dominate the sources of culture is not
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie but between tradition and
Hickson explains that a new culture and a new system of
values are created precisely so that the freedom of ideas may be
redefined. Gramsci (Italian Communist leader) also understood
that the only hope of eliminating the Catholic Church was to
undermine her and destroy her from within.
This unceasing effort to destroy Christianity from within
has passed through several “covenants,” none more damaging than
what has transpired in this century from the results of two major
wars and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
And in the subsequent “quiet Bolshevik revolution” here in
the United States, commencing in deadly earnest under FDR’s
imperium (1933-45) and continuing without let-up through the
reigns of such imperial notables as Dwight David Eisenhower,
Lyndon Baines Johnson, George Herbert Walker Bush, and
William Jefferson Clinton, the latter two concentrating their talents
and personalities on establishing a new covenant with the Soviet
Union (now Bolshevik Russia) as our “partner for peace.”


Ivor Benson, in The Zionist Factor, provided further
pertinent background for this “New Covenant” which is slowly but
assuredly bolshevizing our entire society. He explained that one of
the keys to the Revolution riddle was the conference of Russia’s
Social Democrats in Stockholm in 1908, where the word
“Bolshevik” first came into use.
All of the delegates were agreed in their attachment to the
teachings of Karl Marx (Mordecai), but seemed to be divided on
the ways and means for putting them into effect. Lenin’s group
pushed for radical bloody conflict, and were called the Bolsheviki
because they were the majority. The other group argued for
elimination of capitalism by propaganda and organization, and
were called the Mensheviki (the lesser).
Nearly all Bolsheviks were atheists, called “pseudo-Jews,”
as opposed to “religious Jews.” They could also be called
“pseudo-Russians,” concealing their identity as Jews behind
Russian names. This practice survives today at the highest levels
of Soviet power.11
However, within the ranks of “Social Democrats” were two
radically different groups: those who believed in socialism as a
philosophy and as a program for political change; and those who
did not believe in it, but recognized it as a valuable device to be
used in the conduct of political warfare.
It was at this stage that the Jewish faction fell back on their
age-old technique of dissimulation, and as “pseudo-Russians”
(Jewish nationalists), gained control of the socialist and
progressive parties set up to oppose the Bolsheveki, Benson
Here is another view, taken from Lloyd Wright’s foreword
to Rose L. Martin’s 1968 epic Fabian Freeway:
Because some of the Jews were traditionally small merchants in
Russia as elsewhere, and were at sword’s point with the czars, a
percentage originally became interested in socialism. They joined Jewish

intellectuals and students in supporting revolutionary activities, and thus

many were in the vanguard of the two Russian revolutions of 1917. The
majority, however, accepted only the logical aspects of Marxism and
leaned toward Zionism (i.e., the creation of a homeland with laws and
customs to suit themselves). Zionists are survivalists. On the other hand,
Jewish Communists are assimilationists; and promptly after the
Revolution, they ordered all Jewish organizations disbanded and Jewish
customs suppressed. A homogenized population would produce the
desired environment.12
The fact is that Zionism/Bolshevism and Communism/
Socialism are bicephalous – two heads attached to the same
monster. As we will shortly discover, the same situation prevails
here in the US, with the identical practices of name-changing and
…there was no such thing as a Bolshevik Revolution. There was
a Jewish war of national agression carried out under cover of a Russian
socialist revolution. 13
As Ivor Benson relates (The Zionist Factor), after World
War II, the terrorism and tyranny of Jewish nationalism spread like
colonies of cancer cells all over Eastern Europe. In Communist
Poland, Ambassador Bliss Lane recorded the predominance of
Jews in the key posts of population control. In Hungary, Matyas
Rakosi (Roth) was installed as prime minister with Red Army
support, his cabinet being predominantly Jewish (as reported by the
London Times). In Czechoslovakia, both the party intellectuals and
the key men in the secret police were Jewish (New Statesman
The New York Times reported in 1953, “Romania, together
with Hungary, has probably the greatest number of Jews in the
administration.” There, the terror raged under Anna Pauker, the
daughter of a rabbi. In East Germany the Communist reign of
terror was presided over by Hilde Benjamin, first as vice-president
of the Supreme Court, then as Minister of Justice.
Everywhere, the same revolutionary pattern has been seen:
population control as a means of creating disorder and of undermining the

status quo, the creation of chaos and its reformulation as order by an

alliance of Money and Jewish nationalism to meet the requirements of a
planned New World Order.14
These factors were certainly well known among the ruling
elite of most European countries, as well as in the US and Canada.
Winston Churchill, writing an article in the London
Illustrated Sunday Herald, stressed that this movement among the
Jews is not new:
From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx,
down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg
(Germany), and Emma Goldman (US) this worldwide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and for the reconstruction of society on the basis
of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality,
has been steadily growing.15
Churchill was neither that naïve nor unknowing. He had
already forged workable links among such British establishments
as the Round Table group, British intelligence, the Fabians; and
through such links as Professor Harold Laski of the London School
of Economics and Justice Felix Frankfurter, directly with FDR in
the US; and with Harold “Kim” Philby to Joseph Stalin in the USSR.
He was also locked in with Sir William Wiseman and
William “Intrepid” Stephenson to the Zionists, not only in Britain,
but in New York and Washington, as well as in Palestine, paving
the way for the creation of “a homeland for the Jews.”
Nowhere are these unbroken links more in evidence than
the daisy chain draped about the twin banners of New World Order
and “inter-dependence” as described by Rose L. Martin in Fabian
Freeway. By a careful reading of this outstanding work, as well as
Witness by Whittaker Chambers, one sees clearly the unholy
matrimony between Fabian Socialism and International Zionism.
This linkage runs unbroken through key organizations and
individuals down to the present. One doesn’t have to be that
discerning to see a pattern in the names and activities of a group

totally dedicated to setting up a New World Order of Zionist

totalitarian socialist world government, with themselves in charge
and everyone else relegated to the position of worker bees or
warrior bees, presided over by the Queen Bee and the Lords of the
World. This in fact would become the New Covenant under
President Bill Clinton. It is much more dangerous than FDR’s
New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society.
Looking back on the farcical election campaigns of 1992
and 1996, we see that the main candidates were, in effect, backed
by the same powerful groups; however, the CFR and its masters
concentrated both money and media on a Clinton win. Here indeed
was a reincarnated Leviathan – if not a Messiah – who would bring
forth the New Covenant!
Look behind Bill and Hillary Clinton and see where their
campaign money came from; see the almost invisible faces of their
backers and advisors; get a look at those who swooped down on
Washington as appointees and cabinet secretaries, as they had
under Roosevelt, under Kennedy-Johnson and under Carter. For a
time, under Reagan, we kept the barbarians slavering at the gate,
but, under Clinton, they again seized America by the throat.
We saw the chain in Fabian Freeway, running back to the
Fabian International Bureau in London, branching into the
American Civil Liberties Union in 1921 (the same year the British
Round Table and Colonel Edward Mandell House established the
Council on Foreign Relations), the League for Industrial Democracy
which spawned the Union for Democratic Action in 1941, which
became the Americans for Democratic Action in January 1947.
ADA, called the New Deal-in-exile, included Eleanor
Roosevelt, Dave Dubinsky, Walter Reuther, Joseph Rauh, Jr. (“Mr.
ADA”), Marquis Childs, James Loeb, Jr., James Wechsler, Dr.
Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Senators (and
maids-in-waiting) Herbert Lehman, Richard Neuberger, Frank
Graham, Hubert Humphrey, and Paul Douglas. The brothers
Joseph and Stewart Alsop headed the alphabetical list of ADA
charter members.16

The chain ran from Wilson-House-Brandeis during WW I

years, on to the Paris Peace Conference, where a handful of
Socialist intellectuals and foreign-born radicals were the only
“Americans” who wanted any part of International Government.
This was the first attempt by Fabian Socialists to penetrate and
permeate the executive branch of the US Government and it failed,
says Martin. Colonel House was the leader, supported by the likes
of the youthful trio, Walter Lippmann, Felix Frankfurter and
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Other young men of “insider” standing were also present;
they would subvert the Constitution at a later date: John Foster and
Allen Dulles, Robert Lansing, Christian Herter. House arranged a
dinner meeting at the Hotel Majestic on 19 May 1919, with a select
group of Britons – notably Arnold Toynbee, R.H. Tawney and
John Maynard Keynes. From this small gathering sprang an
organization with branches in England and America “to facilitate
the scientific study of international questions.” Martin reveals:
Two potent and closely related opinion-making bodies were
founded which only began to reach their full growth in the nineteen-
forties, coincident with the formation of the Fabian International Bureau.
The English branch was called the Royal Institute of International. The
American branch, first known as the Institute of International Affairs, was
reorganized in 1921 as the Council on Foreign Relations.17
William Yandell Elliott, a young US army artillery officer
with Pershing in France in 1918, went to Oxford immediately
thereafter as a Rhodes scholar. In 1921, he became a member of
the CFR. He went on to head the government department at
Harvard, write several books, serve as an advisor to presidents,
become a member of the Business Council and be one of three men
who are credited with “inventing” Henry Kissinger (Kraemer,
Elliott, Rockefeller).
Which brings us rather speedily to the present and to other
links of the chain which will bind us to one-world socialism,
namely Henry Kissinger and his associates; and the Arkansas
Traveler, Governor Bill Clinton, member in good standing of the
CFR and of the Trilateral Commission.

The chain remains unbroken.


WHAT were Bill and Hillary Clinton and their many Bolshevik
handlers really up to in forging the New Covenant? The answer is,
to establish Fascism with a friendly face here in the United States.
To bring it off, Clinton and his PR people decided to show the
public the “deep inner spirituality” of this man. Let’s take a look at
this new image and then look behind the image to the real evil
design hiding behind that facade.
Time magazine, one of the media empire’s many ardent
supporters of Bill Clinton and his presidential campaign did some
image-building in its 5 Apr 1993 issue. On the cover is (gasp) a
cross, which is the symbol of Christianity. A closer inspection
shows that the photos inset on that cross are anything but Christian,
however; still, they aptly depict what has happened to an entire
generation since a conscious program was introduced here in the
United States in 1948 to destroy Christianity once and for all.
The bold-face print on the cover, at the side of the cross,
Boom goes back to church, and church will never be the same.”
Considering that Easter was fast approaching when the
issue came out, the article was certainly timely. Notice the
accompanying article (pp 49-51), Clinton’s Spiritual Journey:
“The President’s religious life defies both his political
temperament and the habits of his generation.”
Pricilla Painton did the story. It seems to fit the image of a
Jimmy Carter more than a Billy Clinton, and perhaps it was
designed to do just that. In her lead, and referring to baby
boomers, she asks: “How many of them, if they were about to
become President, would leave a black-tie party with Barbara
Streisand to attend a midnight church service off-limit to cameras
and reporters?”18

Good question, eh? It gets better. (We are now informed

that Barbara and Bubba went for a roll in the hay in the Lincoln
bedroom. They may or may not have indulged in some praying
before, during or after the main event.)
That Bill Clinton has been religious since childhood sets him
apart from his peers – the legions who at midlife, are threshing about for
spiritual moorings. Clinton from age 8 has possessed a conviction about
his Baptist faith so private that he does not even share it with his
[Methodist] wife.
Pricilla then includes a parenthetical “(In Little Rock they
attended separate churches.)”19
She then quotes Clinton speaking on VISN, an inter-faith
cable network, while campaigning:
My faith tells me all of us are sinners, each of us is gone in our
own way and fallen short of the glory of God, and that life’s struggle is
for sinners, not saints, for the weak, not the strong. Religious faith has
permitted me to believe in the continuing possibility of becoming a better
person every day, to believe in the search for complete integrity in life.20
Halleluliah, brothers! And aaaaaamen! To a man that gave
us the infanticide of partial-birth abortion.
Look more closely on the image of Clinton, sitting in the
pew of a church, elbow resting on an adjacent arm, chin clutched in
one hand, the other holding what appears to be a Bible, gazing
pensively in the direction of an altar… or perhaps beyond… and in
the background, the shadowed image of a cross and the out-of-
focus image of his fellow worshippers, mostly blacks.
Here we have the Reverend Billy, a Leviathan; the
reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell and the photo image for his “new
covenant.” A smaller pic is a continuation of the photo
opportunity; Bill and Hillary exiting the church, Bill clutching the
family Bible, a handsome black minister in the background.
Time magazine puffing another Billy with a Bible. Back in
1948 when Billy Graham was a struggling young tent preacher in
the South, it was Henry Luce, owner of Time-Life, who put out the
word, “puff up Graham.” Without casting aspersions at all on the

Reverend Billy Graham, over time he became the Protestant Pope

to a host of American heads of state.
Back to the Reverend Billy Clinton and Pricilla’s fine piece
of puffery. She concludes:
He prays with Chelsea at her bedtime on the nights when he is
home, and on past occasions, when he and Hillary could not get to church,
the family held its own devotional. He has said that in recent years, he
and Hillary, a devout Methodist who carried Scriptures on the campaign
trail, had increasingly long conversations about how to live an honorable
life and the nature of life after death.
On the day after Christmas, at a gathering in Staley’s home of
Little Rock preachers, Clinton let on that he harbored some pastoral
ambitions in the Oval Office. One of the guests handed him a plaque with
the verses from Psalms describing how God presented David to his people
as their shepherd and ‘David cared for them with a true heart and a
skillful hand.’
Visibly moved, he replied, ‘That’s what I want to be.’21
Doesn’t that kind of grab you?
Here is an appropriate excerpt from a fine editorial in the
Richmond Times-Dispatch (12 Apr 93) headed simply Power. It
ends with this weighty thought:
Consider it just a friendly reminder that regardless of party or
ideology or even system, the ultimate political questions have not changed
since the ancients first began meditating on the civil society. Politics is
about power and who wields it.22


The Clinton Administration was bankrupt, morally,
financially and historically. Solzenhenitsyn’s words of 1975 ring
truer today than at any time in the fleeting history of the 80 years of
Bolshevist/Zionist domination:
…How will the West be able to withstand the unprecedented
force of totalitarianism? That is the problem.… I wouldn’t be surprised at
the sudden and imminent fall of the West.… One must think of what
might happen unexpectedly in the West. The West is on the verge of a
collapse created by its own hands.… Nuclear war is not even necessary to
the Soviet Union. You can be taken simply with bare hands.…23

To put a proper handle on what Clinton is designing for us

under his special brand of New Age doublespeak; e.g.,
“microenterprises” and “empowerment” and “new covenant” and
“new choices” and “new paradigm,” one must have a closer look at
an organization set up in 1985 to combat Reagan’s rise to
popularity and relative success as a leader.
The Democratic Leadership Council had its roots in the
South. Its founders included Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas,
Senator Al Gore of Tennessee, Senators Sam Nunn of Georgia,
Lloyd Bensen of Texas and Chuck Robb of Virginia, as well as
Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Bruce Babbitt, former
Arizona Governor.
Clinton was chairman of this group in 1991, when he
declared for the Presidency. A quick check will reveal that he
“empowered” many of his colleagues under the “new Paradigm” of
his Administration. However, a more detailed check will reveal
that most of the real power within the various cabinet offices
resides in ADL and Wall Street assets, strategically placed in the
Number Two slots and then scattered selectively throughout State,
Commerce, Labor, Budget, Justice, IRS, CIA and, in fact, most
bureaucracies, especially Defense, once an impenetrable citadel of
force, integrity and true patriotism.
There are other ways to beard the lion in his den; hence, the
budget cuts for defense, the troop cuts and base closings started by
Bush, and increased emphasis on the role of radicfems and queers
in the military, designed with but one thought in mind… to weaken
the innate strength of a unified (and manly) military force; i.e., to
divide and conquer. The farce of the Tailhook fanny grabbers is
but one facet in the drama of weakening and belittling the military.
Bill Clinton and others of his ilk caused more than a few Flag
Officer heads to roll for that convention caper.
James Webb, a former Marine, and Assistant Secretary of
the Navy under Reagan, writes knowledgeably about a political
witch-hunt: “Spineless Navy Officials Repudiate ‘Loyalty Down.’”
It’s the feminist thing again – outraged female screaming for

justice because some drunken pilot patted her fanny in public at

their annual brawl. Webb states that the Tailhook scandal has been
“spun up,” to borrow a service phrase, into a crisis that affects the
Navy leadership’s credibility on a wide range of issues. He singles
out the acting Navy Secretary, Sean O’Keefe, a budgeteer who has
never known military service. O’Keefe, after conferring with
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, who likewise had never served,
decided he had the moral authority to “discredit the cultural ethos
of the entire Navy based on the conduct of a group of drunken
aviators in a hotel suite.”24
Webb’s key point is his statement:
Today at the highest levels of the US military, one searches
vainly for a leader who deserves mention along with the giants of the past.
Those who might have reached such heights failed the ‘political
correctness’ test and were retired as colonels or junior flag officers.25
He points out that to gain a star involves hitching your
wagon to a political star. “Our ranking admirals have learned full
well to bob and weave when political issues confront them. And
few issues are as volatile as those surrounding the assimilation of
women into the military – particularly since ardent feminists have
focused on the military as an important symbolic battlefield.”26
Webb’s point is that “with the reputations, credibility and
even the missions of their people at risk, the senior admirals have
either hidden or demurred. In the process, they have abandoned
their most sacred fiduciary duty. In military terms it is called
“loyalty down.”
Its abrogation has meant doing nothing as civilian officials
condemn their subordinates en masse without rebuttal. It has meant
allowing a few junior admirals to be ‘taken out back and shot’, as one
Pentagon officer put it to me, while they carefully avoid public
Who will sound the trumpet?
Keep it in mind that Bill Clinton and his new paradigm/new
covenant bunch, especially the Wall Street money-changers, hate
and fear the military. It is the one force that could undo them.

That is perhaps one of the reasons why we have combat forces

located in over 120 countries about the world, and have
simultaneously allowed within the gates combat forces from eleven
UN countries about the world. You don’t have to be a military G2
(intelligence officer) to get the picture.
Another larger diversionary task for the military is the
extension of brush-fire wars and foreign adventures, so that the
patriotic commanders who see the internal danger of our
Constitution and our very way of life being eroded on a daily basis
will be caught up in “tactical exercises” in the Middle East, in the
Balkans and in Africa; and perhaps soon – once more in Korea.
The DLC, through the machinations of its think-tank, the
Progressive Policy Institute, has in fact abandoned the so-called
middle class and is bringing into the fold an association of
financiers, lawyers, accountants, economists, stockbrokers and
arbitrageurs who have made vast fortunes under the Reagan
business expansion, the Carter deregulations and the Volcker-
Greenspan money manipulations.
These parasites and speculators have replaced our once
world-class industrial society with a “service” economy which is
designed with but one purpose in mind: to destroy the middle class
by job destruction, by excessive taxation and debt, and by creation
of a closely-held system of monopoly capitalism wherein not only
is the federal government all-powerful, but it is in actual
partnership with the multi-nationals and the international
This post-industrial transition to a service-sector economy
is in fact Fascism, and it was Bill Clinton himself who tried to
mask it with a friendly face. Look back to the DLC convention in
1991, when Clinton was still the chairman. The theme of that
gathering was “The New American Choice: Opportunity,
Responsibility, Community.”
In the statement of their goal, they harked back to the New
Dealers of the Rooseveltian era, who were also Fascists:

Our goal is to make the beliefs, ideas and governing approaches

of the New American Choice the dominant political thinking in America
before this decade is out.
Just as the New Deal shaped the political order for the Industrial
Age, the New American Choice can define politics in the Information
That program concluded: “the industrial age is over; the old
isms and the old ways don’t work anymore.”29
So, what will work?
Call it Fascism, but with a friendly face. If Time and other
media can convince the gullible public that Bible-toting Billy really
cares about them, and that Hillary really cares about them and their
health and diets and recreational pursuits; and then convinces them
that for this Big Brotherly caring they in turn must make
“sacrifices,” we will find ourselves in the Year 2000 in the harshest
austerity program ever levied upon the American people.
Looking through back issues of the DLC magazine, New
Democrat, one is struck by the number of articles pertaining to
austerity and the little likelihood that we will experience any
economic growth under a Clinton regime. Articles like “Forging a
New Social Contract” and “Brave New Economic World” by such
Clinton advisers as Robert Shapiro and Al From, or “The Welfare
Wars” by Elaine Kamarck, point toward what Thomas Hobbes
called “the kingdom of darkness” in his Leviathan: Defense of
Absolute Monarchy.30
We are in for a period of the long, long night and the sharp
knives of a peculiar collection of International Zionists, call them
Barbarians, that does not bode well at all for middle class
That group of intense economists whose every waking hour
is geared toward the making of money by speculation rather than
production, by usury rather than investment, by free trade rather
than by protecting what little industry left in the US.

Many of the Clinton crowd attended Oxford University or

the London School of Economics. They are well versed in the
writings of Hobbes and of John Locke. According to Hobbes, the
fundamental law of nature of every man is to seek peace; and when
he cannot obtain it, to use all means to defend himself. The second
law of nature is to be content with as much liberty against other
men as he would allow other men against himself, which is the law
of the Gospel; in Latin, quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris
(What you would not have done to you, do not do to others.)31
Hobbes stressed that sovereign power should be absolute,
“whether placed in one man, or in one assembly of men.… And
though of so unlimited a power men may fancy many evil
consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is
perpetual war of every man against his neighbor, are much
Do you see what is now so plain – the eternal threat and
promise? It came at us (the goyim) as early as the first books of
the Babylonian Talmud; and still later into the agreement between
Rabbi Mannaseh ben Israel and Oliver Cromwell; and still later,
through Weishaupt’s Illuminati, to be embodied in the French
Revolution; and again in the Russian Revolution. It was encoded
for posterity (which is us) in Professor Sergei Nilus’ “Blueprint for
Conquest.” It hung as a dark shadow over FDR and his New Deal,
over Yalta and other manipulated conferences involving those
three despotic powers of which Einstein speaks so eloquently. It
contains both the threat and the promise embodied in its myriad
statutes and judgments.
Thomas Hobbes, the religious conscience behind Oliver
Cromwell, saw this clearly. He wrote in his solemn tome Leviathan
the following:
The school of the Jews was originally a school of the law of
Moses, who commanded (Deut. 31:10) that at the end of every seventh
year, at the Feast of the Tabernacles, it should be read to all the people,
that they might hear and learn it.…
It is manifest by the many reprehensions of them by our Savior,
that they corrupted the text of the law with their false commentaries and

vain traditions, and so little understood the prophets that they did neither
acknowledge Christ nor the works that he did, of which the people
So that by their lectures and disputations in their synagogues
they turned the doctrine of their law into a fantastical kind of philosophy
(embodied in the Talmud) concerning the incomprehensible nature of
God and spirits, which they compounded of the vain philosophy and
theology of the Grecians, mingled with their own fancies drawn from the
obscurer places of the Scripture, and which might easily be wrested to
their purpose; and from the fabulous traditions of their ancestors.33
A Leviathan is a monster of huge size which might very
well be the Bicephalous Monster. Hobbes saw it as an artificial
animal and a mortal god constructed by the “covenants of men in
the interests of security, justice and peace. ”
President Bill Clinton carrying out his New Covenant
emerged as the “Leviathan” in the 1990s. He and his many
Talmudic handlers fast turned “the doctrine of their law into a
fantastical kind of philosophy” which gave us brutal Fascism with
a friendly face.
Hobbes’ work combined the details of psychology with the
invective against what he called “the kingdom of darkness.” He
might well have been writing about the Clinton Administration
with its plethora of statutes and judgments and its eternal threat and
Clinton’s “new covenant” loomed over us as a black shroud
which slowly enveloped and smothered us.… Look, look, up in the it a it a plane.… No, it’s Hillary’s black bloomers
emblazoned with “change” and “sacrifice” and “PC.”
Friends, there’s a pair of knickers we don’t want to get
into… at any cost, for that’s the very gal who displayed on her
mantelpiece – in the Oval Office, yet – our collective white, Anglo-
Saxon cojones in a glass jar of formaldehyde.
The Clinton Crowd let loose the Leviathan in the 1990s.
That monster smashed the economy, created a totally oppressive
police state, encouraged a drug-induced hedonism and unlimited
sexual gratification, and perpetrated obscene acts of terror against

its citizens, controlling it all through federal goon squads under

their social contract, the New Covenant.
TIME: 17 March 1986
PLACE: Camp Robinson, near Little Rock, Arkansas
EVENT: Taking out a “Second Mortgage”
PLAYERS: Gov. Bill Clinton, William P. Barr (who would
be President George Bush’s attorney general two years later), Terry
Reed, Oliver North, plus two unidentified CIA agents34
This sets the scene for treason. Read Terry Reed’s
explosive exposé, Compromised, for greater detail of this and other
events leading up to placing an arch-criminal and traitor in the
Oval Office – the highest office in the land. A quick scan of the
preceding chapters of Barbarians will reveal that this was not an
unique event in the process of presidential selection; only the
nature of the “Second Mortgage” (blackmail) was perhaps unique,
in that it involved the wholesale drug-running and money-
laundering operation centered at Mena, Arkansas. Both Vice
President Bush and Governor Clinton were key players in this
illicit and criminal operation, code named “Centaur Rose” and
“Jade Bridge” by President Reagan’s CIA director, Bill Casey.
The reason for the hush-hush meeting in a musty, poorly-lit
World War II ammunition bunker at Camp Robinson was that
William Barr had been selected by the fearful masters to break the
bad news to Clinton that the illegal drug-smuggling operation was
being relocated from Mena, Arkansas to Mexico (under the code
name “Operation Screw Worm”).35
Reed explains that Bill and his friends (including Vince
Foster) “just couldn’t resist putting Arkansas’ hand deeper into the
till than they were supposed to.” From other sources – including
Mossad agent, Mike Harare, Arkansas “businessman” Dan Lasater,
and chief smuggling pilot Barry Seal – we learn that Clinton’s cut
was 10%.

Here are excerpts from the heated exchange in the bunker:

Barr: “The deal we made was to launder our money through
your bond business. What we didn’t plan on was you… shrinking
our laundry.… That’s why we’re pulling the operation out of
Arkansas. It’s become a liability for us. We don’t need live
Clinton: “What do ya’ mean, live liabilities?”
Barr: “There’s no such thing as a dead liability. It’s an
oxymoron, get it? Or didn’t you Rhodes Scholars study things like
Clinton: “What! Are you threatenin’ us? Because if you
Barr (concluding the exchange): “You and your state have
been our greatest asset. The beauty of this, as you know, is that
you’re a Democrat and with our ability to influence both parties,
this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted
me to pass on to you that unless you ---- off and do something
stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve
always wanted. That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill! So why don’t you
help us keep a lid on this and we’ll all be promoted together. You
and guys like us are the ‘fathers of the new government’. Hell,
we’re the ‘new covenant.’” 36
By the time of the meeting in the bunker in 1986, the then
Governor Bill Clinton was a full-blown “Clear Eyes” operative of
his CIA handlers, having passed through Level 4 of the mind
control procedures. He no longer differentiated between right and
wrong. His moral code, respect for the law, and fear of dying had
been replaced with new “superhuman” feelings; he was now
beyond all human laws. In the several years of his association with
the CIA, an “agenda overlay” had been “overwritten” onto his
personality. He was now a “mortal god.”
Bill Clinton had a lot going for him – size, good looks,
pleasing personality, and an IQ of 136, which helped get him a
Rhodes scholarship. This combination helped immensely in

elevating him to the governor’s mansion in Arkansas. The

supreme test for this “Clear Eyes” operative was the business of
running drugs and laundering money through Mena. The fact that
he and his fellow Arkansas Travelers became excessively greedy
was probably a further point in his favor, for his NWO handlers
envisioned that when they placed him in the highest office of the
land, he would bring about the destruction of the sovereignty of the
United States, in order to place it under the total control of the UN.
Bill Clinton had many of the attributes of the youthful John
Fitzgerald Kennedy. As President, JFK was also slated to deliver
up the sovereignty of the US to the NWO crowd. He had been
surrounded by loyal CFR members as advisers and cabinet
members, who were programmed to steer him into another no-win
war in SE Asia, and then, through a series of deliberate
confrontations with the Soviets, to bring about world disarmament.
JFK balked. He went up against the NWO crowd, and was
duly terminated in November 1963. He did issue an Executive
Order in 1962 that started the wheels of world disarmament
turning. This doctrine is known as State Department Publication
#7277, which calls for unilateral US disarmament, not only of the
US military, but of all its citizens. One only need read the Second
Amendment to grasp the importance of this measure, for a global
government can only be brought into existence after the shredding
of our constitution upon which hangs our national sovereignty. An
armed – and suitably outraged – citizenry would prevent this from
Time Flies
The next overt move to place Bill Clinton in the White
House took place in June of 1991. At that time, his quasi-adviser,
Vernon Jordan, escorted him to Baden-Baden, Germany where he
was presented as the heir-apparent to the Oval Office at the of the
Bilderbergers – the wealthy elite of Europe and the United States –
gathered there for their annual top-secret conclave. Bill made his

pitch, which was obviously well received, but the price, was the
guaranteed surrender of the sovereignty of the United States of
America to the UN’s New World Order.
At that meeting, David Rockefeller addressed the assembly:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times,
Times Magazine and other great publications whose directors have
attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for
almost forty years.
He went on to explain:
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the
world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those
years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march toward
a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual
elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
President George Herbert Walker Bush had loudly
trumpeted the merits of a new world order during his “victorious”
war over Saddem Hussein; it wasn’t enough. He saw the shadows
on the wall and graciously ran a limp-wristed, lackluster campaign
for a second term. Helped by a willing third-party candidate, Ross
Perot, Bill Clinton won big, with 43% of the votes in the election
of November 1992. He and his co-president, Hillary Rodham,
launched their sovereignty-destroying program on several fronts in
1993, not the least by a series of enactments to wound the military
fatally, in order to destroy its one and only mission of defending
the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
William Jefferson Clinton, in a manner entirely different
from JFK, didn’t measure up. Where JFK had balked, Bill Clinton
reverted to type and became excessively greedy, to the point of
willfully committing acts of treason. The hierarchy decided that he
had to go. In August 1996, Sen. Ted Kennedy, along with Robert
Strauss and a delegation of top Democrats, paid a social call on the
president. They told him to step down.
In a ‘purple fit rage’, Clinton told them to ‘stick it’. Afterwards,
Clinton sent a message to prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, with a clear

implication as follows: ‘If you indict Hillary or me, you will end up like
Vince Foster or Ron Brown’.37
It is patently obvious that Clinton knew he could make such
a statement and get away with it because of the power elite behind
him, those who were directly responsible for getting him elected to
the presidency in 1992. He was correct in his surmise, for that
same power elite got him elected to a second term three months

THAT very same ethnic group that bolshevized the Slavic

Russians brought a slower, more palatable slavery to the peoples of
the United States via the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the Great
Society and New Covenant; or, as White House special adviser
Sidney Blumenthal phrased it in a speech to the John F Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard on 23 Apr 1998:
The goal is to create a new social contract [New Covenant] for a
global economy… in which civil society, social harmony, and public
safety are restored, and in which multi-cultural people can forge a
common identity.38
In that same stirring speech, Blumenthal said, “If there is a
name for the Clinton approach, it is this: one-nation politics.”41
What Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham and their court hangers-
on established in the 1990s was in fact Fascism as practiced by
several nations in the 1930s.
We seem to forget, perhaps because we would rather not
remember, that Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt were as much
Marxist “socialists” as Lenin and Stalin; they were actually
“gentler” in their implementation of it.
In fact, Red is not dead, nor even dormant. It is alive and
well and has only, like the chameleon, changed its color and shape
somewhat, as well as its name.
We call this strategic deception; and, yes, it is lying, but as
Sophocles taught us, if truth might mean tremendous ruin, to lie is
The bloody footprints of the Bolsheviks mark a treacherous
path through recent history, from the 1917 invasion of Russia
down to the here and now in the United States of America. A very

few writers and historians have been able to trace those tracks by
way of our closely held intelligence. Much, if not most, of the
reach of the clammy hand of communism has been suppressed in
our mainline media, simply because the Bolsheviks control 95% of
that same media and use it to their own end, which continues to be
world despotic dominion with themselves in charge.
Whittaker Chambers finally witnessed the absolute evil of
Bolshevism and the designs (and people) behind it, and crossed
over to the side of freedom, liberty and Christianity. Others have
written in detail about those diabolical evils they witnessed first-
hand. In the process, they have corroborated those data and facts
known right along by a very few astute readers, and yet, their
writings also have been suppressed.
We get a clue to those seeking “world despotic dominion,”
as opposed to those on the side of “freedom, liberty and
Christianity,” in a witty and pointed commentary by the editor-in-
chief of the Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, appropriately
headed “The Runaway Bigots in the White House” (8 May 1998).
Here it is in part:
You can find Bill Clinton nearly every Sunday morning on the
steps of the church, waiting for the photographers, one hand in Hillary’s
and the other clutching the biggest Bible he can find.… In his desperation
to salvage what’s left of his presidency, nothing is off limits, nothing is
over the line.…
The president’s mad dogs, contemptuous as they may be of
anyone who wears the military uniform, nevertheless look to old
Tecumseh Sherman for their inspiration. ‘I can make the march and I can
make Georgia howl,’ he told an admiring Lincoln in 1864 on the eve of
his infamous march from Atlanta to the sea. ‘I propose to kill even the
puppies, because puppies grow up to be Southern dogs.’
This would become the order of battle for a White House 130
years later: burn everything to the ground and plow up the ashes.
When Sidney Blumenthal and the demented James Carville were
loosed on Kenneth Starr and Hick Ewing, proposing to mock and jeer at
their evangelical Christianity, the president gave them no caution about
observing the decencies and restraint that guide the rest of us.…39

It was Blumenthal who referred to Hick Ewing (Starr’s

deputy) as a “religious fanatic” because he admits that he prays for
divine guidance.
“I didn’t know there were that many Jews in Washington,”
a high-level military officer remarked to his colleagues on the
morning after a gala state dinner which he and his wife had
attended. President Clinton was honoring the president of Hungary,
Arpad Goncz. According to the Washington Times (9 Jun 1999),
the 180 dinner guests were entertained by performances celebrating
the folk cultures of Hungary and the United States. Singer Judy
Collins, the evening’s featured entertainer, sang “Chelsea
Morning,” a song that inspired the name of the president’s
daughter. “Actor Tony Curtis, author Kitty Kelley, Nobel laureate
Elie Weisel and fashion designer Adrienne Vittadni peppered an
eclectic guest list.”40
One of the general’s horse-holders checked out the guest
list and verified that over half the attendees were indeed Jewish.
“Washington, under Bill Clinton, has become the new Jerusalem,”
he said. A quick check of the list reveals that the writer who calls
herself Kitty Kelley was accompanied by Jonathon Zucker. Susan
Sontag was there with another writer, David Rieff; other writers
included E. L. and Helen S. Doctorow. To make the evening truly
eclectic, the political crowd included such notables as Charlene
Barshefsky, with Edward B. Cohen. William S. Cohen was
present, with his wife, Janet Longhart Cohen (who is not Jewish).
California was well represented by Rep. Tom Lantos and his wife,
Annette, as well as Rep. Ellen Touscher and her friend, Sally
To be sure, many of the guests were Hungarian, not only
those who accompanied their president, but several who now reside
in the US after fleeing Hungary in 1956.
And therein lies the tragedy, for Hungary, a predominantly
Catholic country, has been conquered not once but twice by the

Bolsheviks. Perhaps the state dinner, hosted by Bill and Hillary

Clinton, is the prelude for the third time, for Hungary is situated at
a most critical crossroads, as regards the destruction and vengeance
currently being visited on the Christian Orthodox Serbs.
A very brief history of Hungary is in order. The early
settlers, chiefly Slav and Germanic, were overrun by the Magyars
from the East in 975, and by the Turks in the 15th-17th centuries.
After the defeat of the Turks in 1697, Austria dominated. Defeated
with the Central Powers in 1918, Hungary lost territory, including
Croatia, to Yugoslavia. A Bolshevist (say Jewish) revolt under
Bela Kuhn (Cohen) was routed in 1919, and a monarchy was
established in 1920.
Hungary joined Germany in World War II and was overrun
by the Soviets in 1945. A republic was declared in 1946, but the
Communists forced the elected president out in 1947. Emre Nagy,
a moderate, became premier in 1953, but was replaced by another
Communist, Erno Gero, who, in turn, was dumped and replaced by
Matyas Rakosi.41
An astounding fact is that both Gero and Rakosi had
originally come with Bela Kuhn from Soviet Russia to introduce
the Bolshevik terror to the Hungarians in 1919. Driven out, the
two of them returned after World War II as key men in the
Communist secret police system in Budapest. Following the
Rakosi takeover, Time (Nov 1953) wrote of “…the strongly Jewish
government of Communist Hungary under Communist Premier
Matyas Rakosi, who is himself a Jew.” The New York Herald-
Tribune stated that same month that “Rumania, together with
Hungary, probably has the greatest number of Jews in the
Of this time of terror and tribulation, the British author,
Douglas Reed, wrote in his seminal work, The Controversy of
Zion, “The case of Hungary was more significant [than that of
Poland], for this country after 1945 endured its second experience
of Communist rule. It not only found the terror to be Jewish again,
but it was wielded by the same men. This deliberate installment of

Jewish terrorists detested by a nation for their deeds of 26 years

before is the strongest evidence yet provided of the existence in
Moscow of a power, controlling the revolution, which deliberately
gives its savageries the Talmudic signature, not the Soviet,
Communist or Russian one.”42
Emre Nagy was restored as premier in 1956. In October,
demonstrations against the Bolsheviks turned into open revolt. On
4 Nov 1956, Khruschev (Perlmutter) launched a massive attack
against Budapest, with 200,000 Soviet troops and 2,500 tanks.
More than 200,000 Hungarians fled the country, Nagy was
killed, and thousands were arrested, most of them being freed in
1963 by the regime. In 1968, Hungarian troops participated in the
Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. In 1989 Parliament
passed legislation legalizing freedom of assembly. As Hungary
shifted away from communism, the Communist party was formally
dissolved, and a parliamentary democracy was established, with
Arpad Goncz being appointed president in 1990. The last of the
Soviet troops left Hungary in 1991.43
That delightful state dinner honoring President Goncz just
might be the precursor of another occupation, this time by the
peacekeepers of NATO, of which Hungary is now a part, having
formally become a member early in 1999. Bear in mind that in
each of these historic events – including Bill and Hillary’s state
dinner – a “hidden hand” has been surreptitiously active,
manipulating the tenuous strings from which dangle an assortment
of political/ economic/military puppets.
A Washington Post article (19 Jun 99) reported, “A flier
calling for an end to the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization was
uncovered at Knesset Israel (synagogue) by a local television
station.” In part, the pamphlet read:
The ugly American and NATO aggressors are the ultimate
hypocrites. The fake Albanian refugee crisis was manufactured by the
International Jewsmedia to justify the terrorizing, the bestial bombing of
our Yugoslavia back into the dark ages. We are Slavs, we will never
allow the international Jew World order to take our Land. We fight to
keep Serbia free forever.44

There is certainly an historic connection between the

Christian Slavs of Serbia and Hungary. Could it also be possible
that the Bolsheviks continue to play a key role in their ongoing
destabilization? Let’s focus on the fact that in this chapter, we are
addressing a New Covenant of destruction and vengeance on the
part of a people who have chosen to live apart – and by their own
code of laws – from the rest of mankind. For the past 2,000 years,
these people apart have used the psychological techniques of
mocking and jeering (and scourging) against those “religious
fanatics,” the Christians. Generally, the mocking and jeering have
been preludes for other, more bloody tactics, often resulting in
open warfare, but usually staged in such a way that Christian
countries end up fighting and killing each other. Those wars in this
century have become unbelievably bloody and destructive.
And so it will continue to be, if the Barbarian within leads
us once more into the breach – in essence, World War III.


IN September 1993, President Clinton nominated Morton Halperin
to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and
Peacekeeping. Knowing this man’s background as a subversive (as
had been his father before him), this author prepared a paper on
him and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which he shared with
the then national commander of the American Legion, Bruce
Thiesen, who sent it to his National Legislative Commission staff
in Washington DC. This author joined forces with that powerful
group in early January 1994 and personally contacted key Senators
of the Senate Armed Services Committee, including the chairman,
Sam Nunn. By late February, our combined efforts paid off. Sam
Nunn announced on 30 March 1994 that Halperin’s nomination
was returned to the Executive Branch at the end of the first session
of the 103rd Congress and that subsequently Halperin requested
that his name not be resubmitted. Clinton was happy to comply,
but later that year placed Halperin in a slot within his National
Security office in the White House (which needed no Senate
confirmation) to function as an assistant for democracy and
As was mentioned in Chapter 1, John McNaughton, his
wife and youngest son were killed in an air accident when their
commercial 727 was struck over North Carolina by a private twin-
engine aircraft (19 Jul 1967). McNaughton had been the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (ISA). He
was replaced as head of ISA by Paul Warnke, a member of the
Marxist/Leninist IPS, who immediately brought on board one of
his IPS comrades, Morton Halperin, on a temporary basis. Even
then, there were extensive FBI files on, not only Halperin, but
other IPS members who had infiltrated into key agencies of the
federal government. None could pass a background investigation.

This trend continued and expanded exponentially under the

administration of Bill Clinton. (See Unlimited Access by Gary
As we will shortly discover, several of these IPS
“comrades” were close personal friends of both Bill and Hillary
Clinton, and were not only members of the subversive IPS, but also
belonged to the Clintons’ exclusive club, the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), which is dedicated to global government.
We will also discover that Vice President Al Gore (CFR)
has had close personal ties to IPS members, and especially to its
financial backers.
Dr. John Coleman, an intelligence officer, issued a warning
as early as 1969 that IPS affiliates had penetrated the federal
government. He stated in his book, Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The
Story of the Committee of 300, that IPS had shaped and reshaped
United States policies, foreign and domestic, since it was founded
by James P. Warburg and the Rothschild entities after World War
II. They were bolstered by Bertrand Russell and the British Fabian
Socialists through its networks in America which included the
League for Industrial Democracy in which Leonard Woodcock
played a leading behind-the-scenes role. Locals included
“conservative” Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irwin Suall of the ADL, Eugene
Rostow, Lane Kirkland and Albert Shanker.45
For record purposes, IPS was founded in 1963 by Marcus
Raskin and Richard J. Barnet. Over the years, it has been financed
by the Samuel Rubin Foundation, controlled by Samuel Rubin’s
daughter, Cora, and her husband, Peter Weiss. Rubin had been a
member of Lenin’s Comintern, but resided in the United States.
With financial help from Armand Hammer, whose father, Julius,
founded the Communist Party in the US and had also been a
trusted friend of both Lenin and Stalin, Rubin launched a cosmetics
business, Faberge, which made him immensely wealthy. In concert

with Armand Hammer, they used their wealth to spread

Bolshevism throughout the country.
The objectives of IPS came from an agenda laid down for it by
the British Round Table, which agenda in turn came from the Tavistock
Institute, one of the most notable being to create the “New Left” as a
grass-roots movement in the US. The IPS was to engender strife and
unrest, and spread chaos like a wildfire out of control, proliferate the
“ideals" of left-wing nihilist socialism, support unrestricted use of drugs
of all types, and be the “big stick” with which to beat the United States
political establishment.…
Through its many lobbying groups on Capitol Hill, IPS
relentlessly used its “big stick” to beat Congress. IPS has a network of
lobbyists, all supposedly operating independently, but in actual fact
operating cohesively, so that members of Congress are pummeled from all
sides by seemingly different and varied lobbyists. In this way IPS was,
and still is, able to successfully sway individual representatives and
senators to vote for “the trend – the way things are going.” By using key
pointmen on Capitol Hill, IPS was able to break into the very
infrastructure of our legislative system.…46
Dr. S. Steven Powell, in his 1987 work, Covert Cadre:
Inside the Institute for Policy Studies, describes IPS as a “violence-
prone group of extremists intent on changing America into a
Marxist-socialist society by dismantling the capitalist economic
order and reshaping public-sector institutions in ways that give the
Left political power thus far denied by the electoral process.” In an
interview with Dr. Powell in 1983, Robert Borosage, the IPS
director, stated that the IPS hoped to move the Democratic Party’s
debate internally to the left by creating an invisible presence in the
Years before Bill and Hillary Clinton became co-presidents
of these United States; they were forming lasting friendships with a
varied group of IPS stalwarts. The talk-radio entertainer, Rush
Limbaugh, in his newsletter of November 1992, warned his reading
public that Clinton had appointed IPS veteran Derek Shearer as his
top economic adviser. Limbaugh added that: “Shearer, who is

about as leftist as they come, is one of Clinton’s closest and

cleverest friends.”
Derek’s second wife, Ruth Yannatta-Goldway, was mayor
of Santa Monica, California from 1981-1983. His sister, Brooke,
would become Hillary’s traveling companion. Their half-brother,
Strobe Talbott, who was Bill Clinton’s great friend and roommate
at Oxford University, would be appointed ambassador to Russia by
Clinton and then the Deputy Secretary of State. He can
occasionally be glimpsed peeping behind the voluminous skirts of
his boss, “Battlin’ Madeleine” Albright.
Just prior to Clinton’s election in November 1992,
Frederick Rose of the Wall Street Journal wrote:
‘Derek is a very old and close friend of Bill Clinton’s, and
among the advisors he is probably one of the oldest and closest friends,’
says Mr. Altman, an investment banker and vice chairman of the
Blackstone Group. Gov. Clinton’s communications director, George
Stephanopolous, calls Mr. Shearer both ‘friend and advisor’ to the
governor, who has hosted the Clintons at his house near the beach.48
Shearer best exposed himself as a radical Marxist in his
1980 book, Economic Democracy: The Challenge of the 1980s. In
it, he stated inter alia that “Marxists economic and social
philosophy was and is an attempt to humanize economic and social
life.… American visitors to China and Cuba… will attest to the
austerity of life… yet, they also comment on the spirit of
cooperativeness and well-being that pervades Chinese and Cuban
Shearer titled his book Economic Democracy, he says,
because “I am a Socialist. When I speak about socialism people
turn their backs to me, but when I substitute the words ‘economic
democracy’ for ‘socialism’, people listen.” Shearer further
devulges how he, Clinton, Hillary, Robert Reich, Al Gore and
company planned, upon taking the reigns of government, to
supplant Ronald Reagan’s Reaganomics (Professor Arthur Laffer’s
supply side economics) with a socialist agenda.

Hillary too has had a lengthy love affair with the IPS
crowd, going back to her days as Hillary Rodham (Rodamski), law
student at Yale, where she served on the board of editors of the
quarterly Yale Review of Law and Social Action. The spring
edition of 1970, which Hillary edited, featured an article by IPS
Director Robert Borosage. A later edition, also edited by Hillary,
urged sympathetic understanding of Black Panthers then on trial
for murder.
As Director and Chair of the New World Foundation in
1987-88, Hillary praised several far-left organizations and awarded
them significant sums of money. Among those notorious groups,
which were labeled by the FBI as Communist fronts, was the
National Lawyers Guild: Hillary awarded them $15,000. The
Committee on Un-American Activities (House Report 3123 on the
National Lawyers Guild, 21 Sep 1950) called the NLG “the
foremost bulwark of the Communist Party [which] since its
inception has never failed to rally to the legal defense of the
Communist Party and individual members thereof, including
known espionage agents.”49
The NLG tie-in to IPS was through its chairman Peter
Weiss, who served on the NLG’s board of trustees. The then
director of the NLG, Victor Rabinowitz, awarded sums of money
to the IPS through the Rabinowitz Foundation.
These Bolshevik stalwarts were the closest and cleverest
friends of both Bill and Hillary going back to at least 1970. They
aided and abetted the meteoric rise of that infamous duo to, first,
governor of the sovereign state of Arkansas; and then, to the
highest office(s) of the land, the co-presidency of the once-
sovereign nation, the United States of America. Many of the IPS
dignitaries were rewarded with cabinet and advisory positions
within the Clinton’s inner circle of absolute power, among them,
Leon Panetta, Les Aspin, Anthony Lake, Stephen Solarz, Timothy
Wirth, Patricia Schroeder, Morton Halperin and Edward Feighan.

All of them – including Bill and Hillary, as well as their

esteemed Vice, Al Gore, Jr. – were also members in good standing
of the CFR.


A blistering book about the vice president hit the market in
1999, titled Gore: A Political Life, written by Bob Zelnick, former
senior ABC News correspondent. His masters at ABC warned him
not to publish the book; he did, and was duly fired. Wow! What a
book! In his prologue, Bob states in part that “however pure his
private habits, Gore like Clinton, was also under investigation for
possible crimes committed while in office.” In some 250 pages,
Zelnick lays out the stark and brutal facts why this man, as well as
his immediate superior, Bill Clinton, should have been impeached.
Add to that work a startling monograph published in 1998
by a former AP reporter, Michael A. Hoffman II, “Hammered! The
Inside Story of the Top Communist Operative Who Groomed Al
Gore to Rule a Soviet America.” Double wow!
Yes, Al Gore, Jr., was locked in to the same cabal of
globalists that brought Bill and Hillary out of the Ozarks; to
identical “social Democrats” (say Bolsheviks); and to the same
high-rolling financiers, namely, Samuel Rubin and Armand
Hammer, both Russian émigrés, whose fathers were close
associates of Lenin, and elite members of the nomenklatura and the
It is to the latter – Armand Hammer – that Al Gore, Jr.
owes his fortunes, both political and monetary. Suave and cunning
corruption not only tainted the father – Al Gore, Sr. – as he
allowed himself to become Hammer’s chief insider in the Senate,
but spread to the son like an inherited predisposition to an
incurable disease – Spanish flu, aka alta traicion.… Right, Bill?
Right, Hillary? Right, Aaron?

Case in point, as covered by Larry Abraham in his Insider

Report of Nov 1992 entitled, “How the Gores Got Greased”:
Over the past 20 years, Al Gore, Jr. has collected nearly half-a-
million bucks in royalties on a zinc mine which didn’t exist for 12 of
those years. The Gore benefactor was none other than Lenin’s personal
bag-man to the US Communist party, Dr. Armand Hammer.…
In a deal put together back in 1973, the senior Gore, after losing
his Senate seat, was virtually given 88 acres in Carthage, Tennessee, by
Hammer, who was then chairman of Occidental Petroleum. The farm,
originally purchased by Oxy, was sold to the Gores at well below market
prices. Then Hammer arranged for Occidental to pay the Gores annual
royalties of $227 an acre, while adjacent farms got $30 per acre. Al Jr.
then ‘bought’ the property from his father, who subsequently went on
Hammer’s board of directors. The elder Gore was given stock options
worth another half-million by Hammer: the senior Gore explains this cozy
deal with America’s most influential Red as being the result of their
mutual interest in Angus cattle.50
In his well-documented paper, Hoffman states, “long before
he reached the White House, Al Gore, Jr. had become Hammer’s
partner in subversion, just as his father had, opening doors and
arranging contracts from his position as a member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee. Congressional investigators have
since discovered how well Vice President Al Gore, Jr. learned his
lessons taught him by his Communist godfather, Armand Hammer.
We now know that in 1996 Gore Jr. peddled White House
influence to the Chinese Communists via the Israelis, in return for
cash, making contact with Hammer’s old allies in the highest
echelon of the Chinese Communist Party.”51
Hoffman aptly describes how, late in life, Hammer
launched his last major covert operation, code-named “Elders of
This was a Jews-only enterprise. The principals were Hammer,
Saul Eisenberg, Albert Reichmann (Canadian billionaire), Robert
Maxwell (British billionaire, ‘taken out’ by the Mossad) and, strangely
enough, Sen. Al Gore Jr., who is officially described by the establishment
media as a gentile. Why would a supposed gentile be included in the

‘Elders of Zion’ operation which was intended to be directed only by

The Elders of Zion operation had a two-fold purpose. It
was another three-way secret split between and among Russia, the
United States, and Israel, which promised to make that tiny
Mideast country a major international aircraft manufacturer.
The second purpose was a campaign to cover up Jewish
involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent Soviet
Communism; i.e., to transform the pivotal role-played by the
Ashkenazi descendants of the Khazarian tribe as the major leaders
of the Bolshevik Revolution, of the Soviet Cheka secret police
under Iron Felix Dzurzinsky and of the Red army under Trotsky.
The new image would depict the Jews as victims of Bolshevism
and martyrs under the reign of Stalin.
Thus, the establishment in Moscow of the Solomon
Mikhoels Jewish Cultural Center (1989). Hoffman describes this
center as the hub of Jewish disinformation now being promulgated
about Soviet Bolshevism (Communism).
A major player in the promulgation of this disinformation is
Jerusalem Post news editor Louis Rapaport, who acknowledges the
central role of the Mikhoels Center in his book exonerating the Jews of
responsibility for the crimes of the Soviet regime.53
We can now begin to understand why Al Gore, Jr., as vice
president, was so chummy with Russian Prime Minister Viktor
Chernomyrdin (dismissed by Yeltsin in 1998), whom Bob Zelnick
describes in his book, Gore, as a crook and an inept, corrupt
It is no secret that many of the billions of dollars funneled to
Russia through him by the United States and other members of the
International Monetary Fund wound up in Swiss bank accounts. In
November 1998, the New York Times reported that by 1995 the CIA had
accumulated what they considered to be ‘conclusive evidence of the
personal corruption’ of Chernomyrdin and had sent it to the White House,
expecting the administration to take appropriate steps to protect American
interests. ‘Instead, when the secret CIA report on Mr. Chernomyrdin
arrived in the office of Vice President Al Gore, it was rejected and sent
back to the CIA with a barnyard epithet scrawled across its cover.54

Zelnick concludes that “the kindest interpretation is that

Gore, a diplomatic neophyte, had become so infused with a sense
of self-importance regarding the ‘Chernomyrdin channel’, that he
was simply unable to process bad news about his Russian chum,
however well-documented it might have been.”55
There seems to be a trend here, although Zelnick certainly
doesn’t flag it as such; that is, of Jewish personnel in high US
government positions seeking out, and dealing on a friendly
personal basis, with known Jewish personnel in high Soviet or
Russian government positions. We saw that with Madeleine
Albright and her dealings, both official and social, with the then
replacement of Chernomyrdin, one Yevgeny Primakov, as prime
minister. Both of these PMs had come up the KGB ladder, both
had undergone early name changes.
Indicative of that trend to please and appease the Zionists
was the hiring by Gore of a Tennessee farm boy and former
Christian minister, Richard Marius, who had become a writer and
teacher. Gore needed a speech to be delivered at Madison Square
Garden on 18 Apr 1993 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of
the uprising against the Nazis by the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto.
Zelnick writes that Marius, en route to Washington,
“dwelled on an unforgettable image of the event, a photograph of a
young boy with hands raised over his head, walking at the head of
a long, doomed line of Jews marching out of the smoke and ruin of
the Ghetto when the Nazis had finally reduced it in May 1943. On
the side of the street a leering Nazi trooper held a rifle.”56
Marius played with this image to produce a memorable
oration. As Gore later recited:
I am always arrested by the image of one frightened little boy.
He wears a coat that reaches to his bare knees over his short pants. On his
head is a wool cap, as if some mother had dressed him to ward off the
morning chill on his walk to school. Yet, here he is, trudging at the head
of a weary column of doomed humanity, his hands lifted in the air in a
gesture of harmlessness under the scornful laugh of a German soldier who
holds an automatic rifle in his hand.

This child is not on his way to school. He is going to his

Before that image, words fail. We are reduced to silence –
silence filled with the infinite pool of feeling that has created all
the words of humility, heartbreak, helplessness, and hope in the
language of the world.
How could the human race have allowed such a calamity as
the Holocaust to fall upon us? What terrible darkness lies coiled in
the human soul that might account for this venomous onslaught in
the middle of a century that was hailed at its birth as a ‘century of
The story of the Warsaw ghetto is sacred text for our time.
It warns us of the unfathomable power of evil, the pestilence of the
human soul for a time can dissolve nations and devastate
But the uprising in the ghetto also warns tyrants wherever
they rule for a season that a fierce, bright light blazes eternal in the
human breast, and that the darkness can never put it out.…57
Well… doesn’t that kind of grab you? Of course, it was
meant to, just as the Diary of Anne Frank was meant to do when it
was concocted by her father and a Dutch writer some six years
after her untimely death.
As Paul Harvey says, “Now, for the rest of the story!”
The rest of the story has to do with that heart-rending photo
of a little seven-year-old boy, hands raised aloft, along with other
children; and behind them, a German soldier with a rifle… little
Jewish children on their way to the gas chambers of Auschwitz and
“extinction” or “extermination.” Anyone over 50 must recall that
photo and the accompanying story.
Using that poignant picture, the compliant media told over
and over again how this little boy’s fate was sealed. He became
one of six million Jews exterminated by the evil Germans during
the “Holocaust.”

An article on the subject (28 June 1982), “Jewish Physician

Accidentally Explodes a ‘Holocaust’ Myth,” explains that “The
historic picture was one of several dozen taken by official German
photographers during the military operation against the Jewish
Warsaw uprising of 1943. Now, almost 40 years later, Dr. Tsvi C.
Nussbaum, a physician in Rockland County, New York, says that
he is the famous boy in the photo.”58
The New York Times broke the startling story (28 May
1982), reporting that Dr. Nussbaum’s statement has upset Jewish
“Holocaust” publicists who are “convinced that the symbolic
power of the picture would be diminished were the boy shown to
have survived.”
The Times wrote, “Holocaust historians have long
considered the photograph a sort of sacred document.”59
They quote Dr. Lucjan Dobroszycki of the Yivo Institute of
European Jewish History in New York: “This great photograph of
the most dramatic event of the holocaust requires a greater level of
responsibility from historians than almost any other. It is too holy
to let people do with it what they want.”60
And what of poor Dr. Nussbaum after all this?
“I never realized that everyone puts the entire weight of six
million Jews on this photograph,” he said. “To me it looked like an
incident in which I was involved and that was it.”61
Thus are legends made…and hoaxes too.
Nussbaum recalls the incident: “In response to rumors that
Germans planned to exchange Jews for German citizens abroad,
many of the Warsaw Jews emerged from hiding and gave
themselves up in 1943. Their names were entered on a “Palestine
list” and the group was sent to Bergen-Belsen detention camp in
The young Nussbaum, then 9, was liberated from Bergen-
Belsen by American soldiers in 1945. He spent the next eight

years in Israel and moved to New York in 1953 where he became a

doctor and “holocaust survivor.”
We read a moment ago of Richard Marius and the speech
he composed for Vice President Gore to deliver. According to Bob
Zelnick, this led Gore to offer Marius a permanent position on his
staff at $70,000 a year. Marius duly gave notice at Harvard and
headed for Washington.
Some months later, Tipper Gore’s chief-of-staff asked
Marius to write a speech for Mrs. Gore, who would be addressing a
family values conference in Nashville. Zelnick relates that the
evening before her speech, Tipper told the press it would be very
special. ‘I’ve worked very hard on it,’ she said.”63
A few days later, the Second Lady’s chief-of-staff called
Marius to inform him that she had some very bad news for him.
“As you know,” she said, “we have very close relations with the
Jewish community.…” Zelnick writes that she told him, “during
the past week, several in that community had complained bitterly
about his appointment. She said the vice president had now read
Marius’s 1992 book review of Season of Stones and had decided
not to hire him after all.”
It seems that Marius had indeed written a review of the
book by Helen Winternitz in which she described the excesses of
Shin Bet – Israel’s secret police – during the sustained period of
Palestinian civil unrest in the late 1980s known as the Intifada.
Marius wrote:
Many Israelis, the Holocaust fresh in their memory, believe that
the horror gives them the right to inflict horror on others. Winternitz’s
account of the brutality of the Shin Bet, the Israeli secret police, is eerily
similar to the stories of the Gestapo, the Geheimstaatspolitzei in Nazi-
occupised territories in World War II – arbitrary arrests in the middle of
the night, imprisonment without trial, beatings, refined tortures, murder,
punishment of the families of suspects.64

“I have never had an anti-Semitic thought in my life,”

Marius protested.
The chief-of-staff then asked Marius to provide a cover for
the vice president, that it was his own decision not to accept the
political appointment.
In the end, Marius wouldn’t lie, even for the vice president.
He told Zelnick in a letter that he had no regrets. “I consider
myself lucky not be a part of the trashy behavior that’s part of this
administration’s life – though I voted for that sleazebag Bill
Clinton in both his presidential elections.”65
Enough of this sleezebag! And, what about Hillary, the
consumate politician and opportunist?
No kidding, friends, it’s in the cards. The gal we know as
the First Lady, a devout Methodist, could become the “grieving
widow.” A recent cartoon by Kevin Siers of the Charlotte
Observer depicts St. Hillary tied to a stake, emblazoned by the face
and protruding proboscis of “her man.” St. Hillary, with those
devout Methodist hands clasped, says, “I stay tied because of my
deep insight into the nature of sin.… Is it my fault people love a
Cal Thomas, in a related column (5 Aug 99), boldly states
that Hillary Clinton puts the spin on religion. “Only a couple that
has been emboldened by their escape from impeachable offenses
would try to spin God.” Thomas quotes the indomitable Hillary:
“Peter betrayed (Jesus) three times, and Jesus knew it but loved
him anyway.” According to Thomas, “Bill Clinton is no Peter, and
she is certainly no Jesus.” He concludes that we have moved to
another level. “The Clintons are beyond all accountability because,
like the Blues Brothers, they are on a ‘mission from God’. God
help the rest of us sinners.”66
We have indeed moved to another level. Will it become
“Level 5,” which portends a “grieving widow”? Consider what has

happened elsewhere in our time. Recall Representative Hale

Boggs “disappearing” in a flight over Alaskan waters (Oct 1972).
His wife, Lindy, was quickly appointed to take his seat in
Congress. Sonny Bono, Representative from California, being
killed in a skiing “accident”; his grieving widow took over as the
Bono rep to Congress.
Mireya Moscoso took over as president in Panama on 1 Sep
99. Gen Omar Torrijos took out her husband, President Arnulfo
Arias, in a coup (1968). Torrijos also signed the Panama Canal
Treaty with Jimmy Carter (1977). This “grieving widow” of
Arnulfo Arias could be of immense help to us if we dispatch the
82d Airborne to make that treaty null and void.
A quick look back at recent history: Gen Juan Peron was
elected president of Argentina in 1946. He and his former
girlfriend-turned-wife, Eva Durate, ran Argentina as a team. This
author’s cousin, Leonard Greenup, was on the scene as a reporter
for the Buenos Aires Herald (1941-45): he and his lovely wife,
Ruth, wrote a best seller in 1947, Revolution Before Breakfast, in
which they describe Evita, who was 30 at the time. They could
well have been describing Hillary:
Evita is also notable for her ability to flaunt the conventions. In
the first place, she had virtual public recognition as Peron’s lady love long
before they were married and the conventional folk of Argentina were
scandalized at the prospect of Peron’s becoming president without
legalizing their relationship. The political convenience of a wedding
played into Evita’s hands, and a few months before the election they took
their vows in a church ceremony. Evita also received the Pope’s blessing
for the marriage, which was an enviable achievement considering she had
been the most gossiped about woman in many a year.
When Evita first came out of obscurity in the early days of the
revolution, she had dark hair worn in a rather long bob. She was good-
looking even then, but not in the smoothly dazzling way she is as the
President’s wife. Evita has become a blonde, her hair done in an
elaborate up-sweep style. Her clothes are designed by some of the most
exclusive French houses in Buenos Aires, and she is said to own at least a
dozen fur coats.…
Her presence on the campaign train marked a beginning of a new
political way of life for the Argentines, who are accustomed to their first

ladies being gracious and entertaining, but completely removed from

political activities. Evita blithely kicked over the traces of such tradition
and became one of her husband’s closest political advisers, sitting in at
conferences and helping the new president divide the spoils of office
among his henchmen. She began going out on her own to the working
districts and inspected factories, housing projects, and made speeches in
behalf of the new government of Argentina. She was installed in an office
of her own and did not hesitate to call cabinet members into her
headquarters to administer tongue-lashings or to distribute largesse. And
while Peron was known as a ‘strong man’ abroad, some Argentines
suspected that at home he was a hen-pecked husband.
Evita’s own ideas on politics are a great influence on the new
president. This may be a handicap. Evita can’t tolerate opposition and is
satisfied to have ‘yes’ men in the highest government posts. She is also
known for her spiteful nature. Evita has compiled a ‘black list’ of persons
who have gotten into her bad graces and she awaits her opportunity to get
even with them, to engineer their fall from power or influence. When she
accomplishes this, she scratches off the name, and is ready to eliminate
the next one on the list.67


Evita died in 1952, Peron was exiled in 1955 after a coup,
but returned triumphant in 1973, and with a new wife, Maria Estela
Martinez, better known as Isabel. He was re-elected as president
and appointed Isabel as his vice president. Ten months later he
died; the “grieving widow” took over the reins of government, but
was ousted by a coup in 1976.
In the Philippines, it was opposition leader Benigno Aquino
who was assassinated in 1983. His “grieving widow,” Corazon
Aquino, ran against Marcos in 1986, becoming president. Marcos
fled the country. It was a different spin in Nicaragua, with Violeta
Barrios de Chammoro defeating Daniel Ortega in 1990 (don’t
know if she was a “grieving widow”).
Still a different spin in India; Indira Gandhi, daughter of
India’s first prime minister, Pandit Nehru (1949-64), was declared
prime minister in 1966. She ruled “democratically” until 1975
when she declared a “national emergency.” Forced out in 1977,
she was re-elected in 1980, only to be assassinated by two of her

Sikh bodyguards, hired by her son, Rajiv, who replaced her, but he
was swept from office in 1989 and assassinated in 1991. Several
years later, Indira’s assassins were freed from their country club
prisons undoubtedly with a Swiss numbered account full of money.
Indira Gandhi’s Marxist handlers had her blown away for falling
behind the timetable to take over Pakistan, who was then
developing A-bomb capabilities.
And, of course, in neighboring Pakistan, Army Chief, Gen
Pervais Musharraf, pulled a coup d’etat on 12 Oct 1999, placing
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif under house arrest.68 Waiting in the
wings is the former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, the “grieving
daughter” of another former prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto,
who had been judicially executed in the 1970s following another
Benazir Bhutto, speaking with BBC World TV in London
on 13 Oct 1999, said she doesn’t support coups, “but ultimately I
blame Sharif for ruthlessly trampling on the rule of law and
attempting to divide the army politically.” She said the army
should set a firm date for elections and “go back to the barracks.”69
Through the eyes of Mrs. Nesta Webster, we can get an
early portrait of Bill Clinton and his Oxford-trained cabinet
members, as painted by a special commissioner of police in
Mayence, France when it was part of the Napoleonic Empire.
Francois Charles de Berckheim reported in 1810 that the Illuminati
had initiates all over Europe and were working hard to introduce
their principles into the lodges of Freemasonry.
Berckheim was a Freemason. He said,
Illuminism is becoming a great and formidable power… kings
and peoples will have much to suffer from it unless foresight and
prudence break its frightful mechanism.70
Berckheim also painted a picture of the organization and
methods of the Illuminati which ties back to the Weishaupt papers
of 1786. The commissioner stated in 1813:

It is above all in the universities that Illuminism has always

found and always will find numerous recruits. Those professors who
belong to the Association set out from the first to study the character of
their pupils. If a student gives evidence of a vigorous mind, an ardent
imagination, the sectaries at once get hold of him, they sound in his ears
the words Despotism, Tyranny, Rights of the People.… Before he can
even attach any meaning to these words, as he advances in age, reading
works chosen for him, conversation skilfully arranged, develop the germ
deposited in his youthful brain.…
At last when he has been completely captivated, when several
years of testing guarantee to the society inviolable secrecy and absolute
devotion, it is made known to him that millions of individuals distributed
in all the States of Europe share his sentiments and hopes, that a secret
link binds firmly all the scattered members of this immense family, and
that the reforms he desires so ardently must sooner or later come about.
The propaganda is rendered the easier by the existing association of
students who meet together for the study of literature, for fencing,
gaming, or even mere debauchery.
The illumines insinuate themselves into all these circles and turn
them into hotbeds for the propagation of their principles… it is by
convening from childhood the germ of poison into the highest classes of
society, in feeding the minds of students on ideas diametrically opposed
to that order of things under which they have to live, in breaking the ties
that bind them to sovereigns, that Illuminism has recruited the largest
number of adepts.…71
As we saw so clearly in the meeting in the ammunition
bunker, it matters not whether the “adepts” are “Republican” or
“Democrat.” Professor Carroll Quigley explained in Tragedy and
Hope that the Money Power “intended to contribute to both and
allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to
conceal their own influence, inhibit any independence by
politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were
exercising their own free choice.”72
We are indeed living in the Kingdom of Darkness.
(Where do we go? What shall we do?)

Universal peace can be founded only on the unity of man under

one law and one government.… All states, deflated and disciplined,
must align themselves under the law of the world-state… the new
William Yandell Elliott, The City of Man, 1941


I T is entirely appropriate, as we wind down the Black Book of

Bolshevism, to retrieve gingerly a slide labeled Los Angeles –
breeding ground for the Bolshevik bacillus, and slip it under our
To bring this modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah into
sharper focus, we must consider a most startling article published
in the Hollywood Issue of Los Angeles magazine for March 1999.
Under the strange title, “MOSCOW 90210,” Thomas Carney leads
us into the sordid world of high crimes and misdemeanors carried
out on a daily basis in what has become our most populous city,
inappropriately named Los Angeles, which could easily pass as Los
The lead-in tells us much:
More than 600,000 émigrés from the former Soviet Union now
live in Los Angeles. They’ve brought with them vodka and ravishing
cheekbones. They’ve also brought shadowy former KGB with a taste for
cash transactions and high security mansions, and criminals so ruthless
that even the FBI is in awe. The Russians are here. And they are
changing the face of LA forever.1

Carney’s exceptionally revealing article stresses that this

influx of Russian émigrés has introduced a heightened degree of
both violence and criminality into LA.
From Russian Hill in Hollywood [Mount Olympus] to the
mansionized yurts of Beverly Hills, from the steppes of Glendale to the
North Hollywood tundra, card-carrying capitalists – some carrying into
the country, literally, suitcases full of cash – have transformed Los
Angeles into Moscow on the Pacific.
According to Carney, they are smarter than we are, better
educated and more ambitious, tougher and slyer, “but their crooks,
according to our cops, are the smoothest thing since iced vodka.”2
Although hard figures are scarce, about 600,000 Russian-
speaking émigrés from the 15 republics that once made up the
Soviet Union now live in Los Angeles. It all began, according to
Carney, in the mid-1970s when Soviet Jews emancipated by the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment began landing in LA… “waves of
Russian-speaking émigrés have hit these shores like surfing sets.”
He elucidates about the suitcases full of cash. These are the
“new Russians”:
…former Communist party apparatchiks who in 1989 saw the
handwriting on the Berlin Wall before it fell and began spiriting an
estimated $66 billion out of party and state coffers into Swiss bank
accounts and American real estate, according to US officials. Many are
reputed to have connections with organized crime. And it is these
Russian nouveau riche who have gravitated not to New York or Miami
but to America’s leader in unbridled capitalism and unapologetic
behavior: Los Angeles, California.3


The principal individual in Washington responsible for
opening the floodgates to unbridled Jewish emigration from
Eastern Europe into the US was Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-
WA). He was always dans le poche of the Israel-first crowd of
influential Bolsheviks here in the United States.
One of the Representatives of that time who knew “Scoop”
Jackson very well indeed was Paul Findley (D-Oh) who wrote

extensively about him in his book, They Dare to Speak Out (1985).
All too typical of the Israel-first political action committees
financing Sen. Jackson (and other Congress members) was the
National Bipartisan Political Action Committee headed by Mark
Siegel. This group was formed originally to help in the late
Senator Jackson’s 1978 presidential bid.
Findley explains how a top Defense expert outlined to him
an event involving President Carter’s Secretary of Defense, Harold
Brown (whose father was a Russian Jew):
I remember once Israel requested an item on the prohibited list.
Before I answered, I checked with Secretary Brown and he said, ‘No,
absolutely no. We’re not going to give in to the bastards on this one.’ So
I said no.
Lo and behold, a few days later I got a call from Brown. He
said, ‘The Israelis are raising hell. I got a call from (Sen. Henry) Scoop
Jackson, asking why we aren’t cooperating with Israel. It isn’t worth it.
Let it go.’4
Findley stresses that Israeli penetration of State and
Defense reached an all-time high during the Reagan
In 1984 people known to have intimate links with Israel were
employed in offices throughout the bureaucracy and particularly in the
Defense Department… headed by Fred Ickle, undersecretary for
international security. The three personalities of greatest importance in
his area are Richard Perle, Ikle’s assistant for international security
policy; Stephen Bryen, Perle’s principal deputy, whose assigned specialty
was technology transfer; and Noel Koch, principal deputy to Richard
Armitage, assistant secretary for international security affairs. Koch was
formerly employed by the Zionist Organization of America. Perle
previously served on the staff of Democratic Senator Henry Jackson of
Washington, one of Israel’s most ardent boosters, and had the reputation
of being a conduit of information to the Israeli government. Stephen
Bryen came to the administration under the darkest cloud of all.5
Bryen was on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in 1978, at which time he offered a top-secret
document on Saudi air bases to a group of visiting Israeli officials.
He later left the committee and became executive director of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), an

organization founded – according to the Jewish Week – to

“convince people that the security of Israel and the United States is
interlinked.” When Bryen moved to the Defense Department, his
wife, Shoshona, replaced him at JINSA.
Later, a Justice Department memo (26 Jan 1979) revealed
that “Bryen is (a) gathering classified information for the Israelis,
(b) acting as their unregistered agent and (c) lying about it.…” The
file was closed in late 1979 without action.6
Early in 1981 Bryen was hired as Richard Perle’s chief
deputy in the Pentagon. Perle himself was picked up in an FBI
wiretap discussing classified information with someone at the
Israeli embassy. In 1983 Perle received substantial payment for
representing the interests of an Israeli weapons company. He
would claim that he was between government jobs when he
worked for the Israeli firm. In 1999 Perle was a principal adviser
to Governor George W. Bush in his campaign for the presidency.
Another glimpse of “Scoop” Jackson and his Zionist/
Bolshevik handlers is found in Walter Isaacson’s voluminous work
Kissinger (1992), wherein the Jackson-Vanik Amendment became
an all-consuming part of the then Secretary of State, Henry
Kissinger’s, efforts to ram through Congress a bill to grant most-
favored-nation (MFN) status to the Soviets.
According to Isaacson, “Jackson was not the type of leader
who needed an impassioned aide to tell him what to think, but he
had one anyway: Richard Perle, an intense, razor-sharp scourge of
the Soviets who, despite his cherubic smile, earned the sobriquet
Prince of Darkness from the legions he had engaged in
bureaucratic battle. Among the kinder things Kissinger called him
at the time were ‘ruthless’, ‘a little bastard’, and ‘a son of
Mensheviks who thinks all Bolsheviks are evil.’”7
Isaacson includes such other Israel-firsters then riding high
in Washington as Morris Amitay, then of Sen. Abraham Ribicoff’s
staff and later head of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC). Jackson’s main supporters in his efforts to
get the Jews out of Soviet Russia also included Senators Ribicoff

and Jacob Javits, both of whom were pushing for annual quotas of
around 100,000 Jews.
In January 1975, following passage of the trade bill, the
Soviet Union repudiated it and informed the US that it would not
seek most-favored-nation status or comply with provisions of the
bill. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, however, was now part of
American law. For the next 15 years, the numbers of Jews
emigrating fluctuated based on the warmth of Soviet-American
relations. In 1979, after a new wheat deal and the negotiation of a
SALT II treaty by President Carter, it jumped to 51,000. It was
only during the Gorbachev revolution of 1989 that emigration
restrictions were suddenly lifted. In 1990, the number of Jews
leaving the country exploded to 150,000.8
Richard Perle, along with a strange mix of neo-cons and
Israel-firsters, urged President Clinton (by letter dated 29 Jan 1999)
to use “strong action and sustained US leadership to address the
largest security crisis in Europe today. Serbian forces under the
command of President Slobodan Milosevic are again slaughtering
civilians and threatening the stability of the region, as many of the
same forces did in Croatia and Bosnia.”9
Perle and his fellow “patriots,” such as Morton
Abramovitz, Richard Burt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bob Dole,
William Kristol, Mel Levine, Helmut Sonnenfeldt and Jeane
Kirkpatrick, want NATO to use air power as necessary to compel
the removal of Serbian forces and prepare the way for the
introduction of NATO ground troops. The next logical step would
be to agitate for NATO troop involvement in a contrived crisis
anywhere outside of Europe – say, in the Middle East, or even on
East Timor island, one of 13,000 islands making up Indonesia,
situated on or near the equator to the north of Australia. To the
global government advocates, no country, however remote, is safe
from the Talmudic tactics designed to destroy utterly any nation or
peoples standing in the way of total subjugation by the chosen few.
It would seem a far cry from the build-up of Eastern
European émigrés (say criminals) in Los Angeles to their fellow

Bolsheviks wanting once more to bomb a country (any country but

Israel) back into the stone age, but, oddly enough, there is a
relationship. And perhaps even stranger, a relationship to the
planting of a young, innocent “intern” into the White House in
1993. Remember that sweet Monica was also a product of the
influx of aliens into Hollywood.
In mid-century, the noted British journalist and author,
Douglas Reed, came to America and toured about the country,
generally liking what he saw. In his work Far and Wide, published
in 1951, Reed takes us on his travels, which began on the
rockbound coast of Maine, took him into the deep South and
eventually Westward until, mid-1950, he reached Los Angeles.
Los Angeles stands on the opposite coast from the first
settlement and is the opposite of all the earlier American Republic meant.
Thirty-five years ago it was but a name on a map, and now it is of the
world’s biggest cities. What it yet may become, the mid-century traveler
might ask in borrowed word:
Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damn’d;
Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell.
Be thy intents wicked or charitable?
Thou com’st in such a questionable shape.10
Reed’s reaction was “a tinselled impermanence in this city,
built on the irrigated sands. It has the all-denying spiritual
desolation of New York.”
The recent immigration to California, and especially to Los
Angeles, Reed saw as politically instigated. “Growing population
means growing political power, in the capital at Washington, in the
United Nations building at New York, and thus in the world.”
Reed reveals that a careful study of the American electoral
system shows the points where power may be obtained:
Of the 150 million American in 49 states, about 60 millions live
in seven states, the thickly-populated industrial ones of New York,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts and California.

Each state, large or small, sends two senators to Congress, but the
numbers of Representatives rise or fall according to states-population.
The concentration of population in these seven states gives them the
balance of power in presidential elections. The political control of these
states, therefore, is a major prize in the contest for power.…
Into these states the new immigration from Eastern and Southern
Europe, after the Civil War, mainly flowed. It is fairly clear today that
this movement was largely directed, in the case of the Jewish
immigration, by the Political Zionists. In 1940, according to Jewish
reference books, more than half of all Jewish immigrants went to
Simultaneously an increasing number of Negroes is being drawn
from the South into these seven states by Communist-dominated unions.
The powerful waterside union in California chiefly instigates this
movement. These unions are under the control of leaders of Eastern
European origins.… By these means the vote of the seven key states has
been mobilized for Democratic or Communist candidates.… Los Angeles
is growing into a political stronghold of the new immigration on the
Pacific, as New York is already its chief one on the Atlantic and in the


A man who saw first-hand the fatal workings of what he
called Bolshevik/Zionism was Jack Bernstein, an American Jew
who moved to Israel shortly after its founding in 1948. He
returned in abject disgust to the United States after witnessing the
machinations of a political triad of countries during the so-called
Yom Kippur War in 1973. He would later publish a book, The Life
of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel.
Perhaps the key to understanding what is currently
transpiring in the Middle East, especially in Israel, is what
Bernstein calls the “Golda Meir/Stalin/Kaganovich Pact.”
Bernstein denies that because Soviet Russia sold military
equipment to Egypt and the Arab countries, the Soviets supported
the Arabs in the 1973 War. “This is a false impression,” Bernstein
emphasizes, and in order to comprehend the blatant deceit behind
it, one must understand the Golda Meir/Stalin/Kaganovich Pact.12

Golda Meir (Meyersohn), born in Russia in 1898, grew up

in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and in 1921 moved to Palestine. In
1949, she became Israel’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union. It
was here that she met with Josef Stalin and his brother-in-law,
Lazar Kaganovich. From this fortuitous gathering emerged a top-
secret pact, in which Israel (1) would not allow the US or any
Western country to build military bases on Israeli territory; (2)
would allow an official Communist party to function in Israel; (3)
would never make any agreement to solve the Palestinian problem;
(4) would work with world Jewry to adopt a policy of Western
powers favoring Israel over the Arabs; and (5) would continue its
Marxist economic policies.13
In return, the Soviet Union was to (1) institute a pro-Arab
policy solely as a camouflage for its true intention, which was to
furnish military aid to the Arabs (and Egypt), but never enough to
enable them to destroy Israel; (2) encourage Jewish immigration to
Israel from the Soviet satellite countries, and, if insufficient, then
allow Jewish emigration from Soviet Russia; and (3) absolutely
guarantee the security of Israel and, in that connection, authorize
the free exchange of intelligence reports between Israel and the
Soviet Union.14
The third leg of the tripod (the United States) would come
into play during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when the Egyptian
armies penetrated deeply into Israeli defenses in the Sinai.
Bernstein stresses, “as pre-planned, the US airlifted massive
amounts of military equipment and supplies to Israel…” and placed
the US 82d Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, as well as US troops
stationed in Germany, on alert, fully prepared to be airlifted into
Israel to assist the Israeli forces against the combined
Arab/Egyptian armies, if necessary.15
Bernstein also explains how the New York-Moscow-Tel
Aviv triad functioned during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon,
stressing that the real reasons for Israel’s attack on Lebanon were
(1) to carry on a perpetual war in the Middle East, with the attack
on Lebanon merely another phase of its Zionist/Marxist “wars of

aggression”; (2) to capture the waters of the Litani River for use in
water-scarce Israel.16
Bernstein states that the terrorist attack on the Marine base
in Lebanon, causing the death of 250 US Marines, “was planned by
Israeli military personnel… the Mossad, Israel’s secret service.…
By instigating the attack on the Marine base, the Israeli ‘war
hawks’ had hoped the attack would turn the American people
against the Arabs, and that the US could be drawn into the war and
further help Israel in its aggression.”17

YOU may not recall a play staged in 1938 called The Fifth
Column. It was based on the phrase, which originated in a radio
address by one of Franco’s generals, Emilio Mola, during the
Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Mola was leading four columns
of troops against Madrid, and boasted that he had a“fifth column of
sympathizers within Madrid who would support him.
Spain in the 1920s was controlled by the Socialist party
(PSOE) under Francino Largo Caballero, who served the new
Spanish Republic until a failed military coup by the Falangistas
(Aug 1932) brought disaster. The following year, the Socialists
lost the election. Spurred on by alien Bolshevists, they resorted to
Gen Francisco Franco, a highly capable career officer, a
nationalist and devout Catholic of Jewish heritage, was reluctant to
use military force; however, seeing his country threatened by a
deadly foreign bacillus and sensing the alien effort to divide the
army, he was prepared to act “if worse came to worse.” By
February 1936, he knew that a take-over by the Bolshevist left was
imminent and that it would lead to forced collectivization,
destruction of the Church and brutal repression by the agents of
Soviet Russia.
“Their fronts are Socialism, Communism and Bolshevism
which attack civilization to replace it with barbarism,” he told his
army commanders after the Socialists regained control in the
elections of 1936, only to be overwhelmed by their brother
Bolshevists who had penetrated the PSOE.18
Just as in Russia in 1917 and onwards, the Zionist
Bolshevists zeroed in on two principal targets: the military and the
Church. By March, the first burnings of churches and convents
took place, as the militant Communists formed a revolutionary
Marxist party, Partido Obrero de Unificaion Marxista (POUM)

which began in May to take over the factories. By June, the

POUM had burned 160 churches, committed 269 political murders,
called 113 strikes and sacked ten newspaper offices. The
government failed to act. In fact, the new republican riot-police,
the Assault Guards (similar to BATF and FBI) actually joined in
the violence.19
Sensing imminent disaster, the civilian authorities pleaded
for Franco to act. Recognizing that he now had “respectable civil
backing,” the General struck with military force, triggering the
Civil War, which pitted the Republicans (controlled by the
Comintern, i.e., Bolshevists) against the Nationalists (Franco and
his regular and colonial forces).
Franco was appointed chief of state in October 1937, when
the siege of Madrid began. By mid-1938, he launched an offensive
which carried him to victory over the Bolshevists in 1939. He
continued as chief of state until his death in 1975. In 1957, he
announced that the Spanish monarchy would be restored at his
death. King Juan Carlos I assumed the throne in 1975, the first
king of Spain in 44 years; Generalissimo Franco had reigned as
chief of state for 36 of those years.
Paul Johnson points out in his masterful work Modern
Times: “For the Republicans (Bolshevists), the Catholic Church
was the chief object of hatred.” He states that Arthur Koestler, in
The Invisible Writing, described how Fascist atrocities were
fabricated in the lie-factory run by Otto Katz from the Comintern
office in Paris.
It wasn’t only the lie factory that aided and abetted the
subversive Communists/Bolshevists; they were glorified by such
writers as Ernest Hemingway (A Farewell to Arms), and by the
Abraham Lincoln Brigade made up of American volunteers
fighting for the Marxist Republicans. Johnson reports:
No episode in the 1930s has been more lied about than this one,
and only in recent years have historians begun to dig it out from the
mountains of mendacity beneath which it was buried for a generation.

What emerges is not a struggle between good and evil but a general
Upon this Millennium, we are faced with a general tragedy
far worse than the events of the Spanish Civil War. Identical forces
are at play, but with far more concentrated power at their disposal,
including such weaponry as nuclear, chemical, biological agents, as
well as weather manipulation. With the seven levers of power now
virtually totally in the hands of the Barbarians within our gates, we
seem to be headed down the slippery slope to unprecedented
destruction, depression and decay. Even our once proud and loyal
military – the Muscle, if you will – has apparently been co-opted to
subvert the Constitution and support the global oligarchs.
We have seen in this work how two other countries
separated by distance and time resorted to the technique of
violence to save their countries and culture from the great menace
of this century – atheistic Bolshevism. General Francisco Franco
saved Spain in the 1930s from this deadly bacillus. General
Augusto Pinochet saved Chile from the identical deadly disease in
the 1970s.
Today, at least two leaders of other countries also separated
by a vast distance are fighting to stave off the global gangsters and
their financial manipulations – Malaysia and Venezuela.
“The prime minister of a friendly nation has been targeted
for elimination. His crime is that in a world order built on lies, this
man tells the truth.” This was the kicker for a factual reportage by
Warren Hough in the Spotlight weekly (7 Dec 1998). President
Clinton was pushed by his handlers to sign on to a series of covert
actions designed to overthrow Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohamad, “an elected, democratic and long-established Asian
Hough cites a report by Russell E. F. Faulkner, a British
broadcast correspondent stationed in Hong Kong. The campaign to
destabilize the Malaysian government was driven by Israel’s

aggressive Washington lobby, its secret service, the Mossad, and

its powerful allies on Wall Street, George Soros and the
Establishment media. Faulkner related:
They have never forgiven Mahathir for publicly denouncing the
international financiers [whose currency raids ruined Southeast Asia’s
hard-working economies last year] as ‘Jewish speculators’ and criminal
Zionist money manipulators.22
In addition, Mahathir “has established himself as a leader
among critics of the unfettered global markets and the IMF’s
economic prescriptions,” reported Washington Post staff writer
Paul Blustein from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia’s capital, on 21 Nov
Blustein also related that the IMF and the Clinton
administration are more eager than ever “to discourage other
countries from following Malaysia’s lead in imposing financial
controls on speculative ‘hot money’ maneuvers.”
Hough states, “Zionism’s worldwide agent network and the
web of dual-loyalist policy makers in Washington, led by Vice
President Al Gore, are doing more than just discouraging
neighboring governments from emulating the Malaysian leader’s
patriotic reforms. They are encouraging a coup d’état against him,
diplomatic sources say.”
In our own Western Hemisphere, we witnessed an
aftermath of an attempted coup d’état in Venezuela in 1992. The
leader of that failed coup attempt, then Lt Col Hugo Chavez,
marched out of the darkness on the night of 4 Feb 1992, with
10,000 troops behind him, to try and overthrow the corrupt
government of Carlos Andres Perez (CAP) who, along with his
thuggish underlings, had bled off over $250 billion of oil wealth,
and, in the words of columnist Georgie Anne Geyer (Washington
Times, 1 Dec 1998), “built up huge voracious bureaucracies (33%
of the country works for the government) and left Venezuela today

with 80% of the population of potentially the richest country in

Latin America living in miserable poverty.”24
Geyer informed us that the coup attempt “didn’t work,
some dozens were killed, and [Chavez] went briefly to prison, only
amazingly to emerge where he is today.”
So, where is this failed coup leader today? As the Agence
France-Presse reported from Caracas, Venezuela (1 Dec 1998),
“Former coup leader Hugo Chavez will win Sunday’s presidential
election by a landslide, according to a poll released two days ago, a
week ahead of the vote.”25
And win he did! The young, charismatic nationalist and
former soldier easily defeated the runner-up Henrique Salas Romer
by 59% to 36%. He appears to be cut from the same cloth as
General Aleksandr Lebed of Russia, who is also a former patriotic
soldier, and poised to take over as the Russian president by “ballots
or bullets.”
As we put behind the totally decadent 20th century, we are
bound to see more patriots and soldiers rise up to follow in the
footsteps of such as Gen Simon Bolivar, the Latin American leader
whom President Chavez admires above all others:
Today, we continue with the same dream, with the core idea
being Bolivarian, because he was the author not only of a physical, but of
a moral ideal – for all of Latin America and for all of the world.26
Bolivar had become dictator of Venezuela in 1813 and, in
1817, established the independent government of Venezuela. In
1821, by defeating the Spanish army at Carabobo, he ensured the
independence of his country. In 1824 he was proclaimed emperor
of Peru. Revered as Latin America’s “soldier-statesman,” he died
in 1830 at the age of 47.27
President Hugo Chavez, 44, also has great plans for his
country; but, so did Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad before the
international bankers and the speculators, as well as the IMF, got

hold of it. Horrendous debt and devaluation of their currency has

virtually destroyed the Malaysian economy. Horrendous debt and
grand internal theft by CAP and company virtually destroyed
Hollywood has produced a so-called blockbuster movie
entitled The Siege (1998) which depicts in living color the
imposition of martial law in New York City following a series of
terrorist acts there. William Norman Grigg, one of the
editor/writers of the New American magazine, reviewed the film in
the 7 Dec 1998 issue under the banner, “Could it Happen in
Of course it could. Grigg asks an all-important question:
Should this film be regarded as a cautionary tale or a trial balloon?
Recall the political satire Wag the Dog which eerily depicted,
incisively and accurately, an event that was to take place months
later (Aug 98) when President Clinton, caught in his peccadilloes
with a purposely-planted intern, decided to bomb two sovereign
nations as a technique of fighting terror.
Is The Siege similarly a sign of things to come? Grigg
states that the intended purpose was to gauge the public’s response
to a specific scenario.29
One should compare it to Seven Days in May, which, rather
than imposition of martial law, showed a planned coup d’état.
There is a difference. The new film depicts the hero/villain as a
two-star commander, Gen Devereaux, of an elite force of
paratroopers who, rather than attempting to overthrow a corrupt
government, is simply following the orders of his commander-in-
chief, Bill Clinton.
There is another villain, of course, namely the Muslims. As
the New York Times observed (1 Nov 1998), referring to the
Muslims and Arabs undertaking a leaflet-distribution campaign
outside the theaters showing The Siege:

They point out that there is no avoiding the fact that its villains
are Arabs who quote the Koran and perform ablutions before heading off
to blow up innocent civilians.30
Dare we ask, just who benefits when Christian America is
pitted against the Muslim world, or, for that matter, against the
“Yellow Peril”? Just who is it that orchestrates these scenarios,
defines these enemies and cunningly sets us up for further police-
state repression?
Grigg asks another pertinent question: “Why is America so
We were close to a coup here in the United States at the
time of the Kennedy assassination in November 1963. Tapes
recently released indicate that what transpired at that time was in
fact a double coup – one in South Vietnam, the other, just a few
days later, when the author of the Vietnamese coup was himself
taken out.
Two unresolved questions remain: who specifically was
behind both events; and, most important, what was the raison
We get a partial answer from Christopher Mathews, a
nationally syndicated columnist writing in the Washington Times
(29 Nov 1998). His column, “Echoes of Vietnam,” is based on the
release of tapes in late November 1998 which reflect “the most
fateful American action of the Vietnamese War: the August 1963
decision to dump the existing government in Saigon led by
President Ngo Dinh Diem and replace it with a military junta more
responsive to US war aims.”32
From the tapes made by JFK himself (4 Nov 1963)
immediately following the bloody butchery of President Diem and
his brother Nhu in an armored personnel carrier in the early
morning hours of 2 November, Mathews lays out the
Machiavellian sequence which ultimately led to the butchery of

over 55,000 American boys in a jungle war half-way round the

world which was unwinnable from the start. Mathews stresses:
By eliminating the last Vietnamese leader with the legitimacy to
tell us to leave that country, we lost the last leader with the legitimacy to
ask us to stay.
Here are those events, along with the perpetrators:
Kennedy’s fateful command was delivered in a 24 Aug 63 cable
to his hand-picked ambassador in Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge, approving
a military coup against Diem.…
‘We are launched on a course from which there is no respectable
turning back,’ Lodge responded; ‘the overthrow of the Diem
government.’ On 1 Nov… the coldblooded Lodge had breakfast with
Diem, assuring him he had nothing to fear. Later, when an anguished
Diem called for help, Lodge waffled, saying people were asleep back in
Washington and he couldn’t get a decision on what to do.…33
Kennedy places the blame on the divided counsel he was
getting from his experts. On the 4 Nov tape, he lists those backing
the coup, Averell Harriman, Roger Hilsman and George Ball of the
State Department, and National Security aide, Michael Forrestal –
and those opposed: military aide Maxwell Taylor, Attorney
General Robert Kennedy, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara
and CIA chief John McCone.34
So, the questions remain: What will happen? Will it be war
rather than reconciliation in the Middle East? Will it trigger World
War III?
In fact, unpayable debt, financial currency speculation and
devaluation, ever-increasing unemployment and wild fluctuations
in the world stock markets all point toward a gigantic global
financial collapse. Will it collapse the US economy? Will the
President, whomever he (or she) may be, declare martial law?
Could a civil war not unlike that of Spain break out in the United
As one disgruntled general officer remarked in June 1999,
“it may be time for Hugh [chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Henry
Shelton] to say what Franco said in 1936 – ‘enough is enough.’”

It may already be too late. Maybe we too, not unlike the

Russians of 1917, were conquered by a coup d’état carried out by a
relatively small group of determined and deadly Bolshevists. They
now appear to have absolute control over six of the seven levers of
power. Could that seventh lever – the military – launch a counter-
Or has it come to pass – as many believe – that the sacred
tenets of Duty – Honor – Country have been bred out of them, and
that they are now the fawning, boot-licking puppies of our fearful
Patrick J. Buchanan perhaps said it best in a bold
commentary published in the Washington Times (22 Feb 1999).
He states that: “[W]ith the Senate’s failure to muster even a bare
majority for the conviction of Bill Clinton, some conservatives are
near despair.”35
“Is the culture war over?” Buchanan asks. He stresses that
“looking back over recent decades, it is impossible to deny that an
anti-Western culture has completed its long march through
America’s institutions, capturing the arts, entertainment, the public
schools and colleges, the media, and even many churches.”
“Politics is the last contested battlefield of our culture war,
for only through politics can the new cult, a militant and intolerant
secularist faith that will abide no other, impose its values on us.”36
Buchanan, in his own inimitable style, asks the gut-
wrenching question… Where do we go? What shall we do? Is the
battle truly lost?
We find the clincher – and perhaps the courage to withstand
the onslaught and even to mount a last desperate counterattack – in
his final paragraph, for this country has been there before. Leaders
did emerge, sword in hand, to take a stand against fearful odds and
go toe to toe against the alien forces within the gates. Here is

What is needed today is the same awareness that finally hit the
conservative men of America in the early 1770s. Loyal to their king, they
had rejected the counsel of Sam Adams to rebel against him and fight.
Finally, it dawned on these conservatives that they had to
become radicals; they had to overthrow the king’s rule to keep what they
had. And they found in George Washington a conservative leader with
the perseverance to take us to victory over an enemy superior in every
way but courage and character.37
Is there not today, among that vast array of sheer military
force, just one leader who will sound the trumpet and mount the
charge against a totally tyrannical despot and his imperial court
lackeys, and bring them to a court of military justice and/or the
A lesson can be learned from the Book of Judges, which
outlines how Gideon saved Israel from the fearsome Midianites.
From a force of 32,000, Gideon, guided by the Lord, chose only
300, and with that comparatively small number, which he split into
three forces of 100 each, he attacked the Midianite hordes at night.
Each man carried a lamp and a trumpet, and, with the flickering
lamps and the blowing of trumpets, Gideon surrounded the enemy,
who fled in panic. Gideon’s forces pursued them, captured their
princes and slew them, “and brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to
Gideon on the other side of the Jordan.”
There is a lesson here for the more astute, perhaps best
epitomized by America’s national motto: “In God we trust,” as
well as in our military oath, which ends: “So help me God.” We
can add to those as a natural continuum: “God plus One is always a
And perhaps finally, “If God be for us, who can be against
us? (Romans 8:31)
(Destabilize from Within)

I came in on a tank, and only a tank will evict me.

Abu Zuhair Yahya, Iraqi prime minister, 1968


H AVING stood in the shadows of four coups d’état since 1967,

this author has more than a passing interest in why and how
they come about.
A coup d’état (stroke of state), Webster tells us, is the
sudden, forcible overthrow of a government. Generally, over the
50 years since the end of WW II, it has been used by disgruntled
military factions in the so-called developing or emerging nations,
particularly in the Mideast, Africa and Latin America.
And conversely, seldom used in developed countries.
However rare, coups have indeed been successfully staged
in certain advanced societies during those same 50 years. Probably
most important, a coup could be attempted over the next few
months in such states as Russia, Italy, France, Britain or even the
United States.
What conditions would make an advanced country ripe for
a coup?
There are certain factors we can watch for, the most
important flags of danger being four in number, and a combination
of the four indicating that traditional strengths and resilience of a
developed country have been dangerously weakened:

1) Rising instability within the major parties making up

the political system, leading to gross disaffection on the part of the
2) Rising financial/economic instability, characterized by
rapidly escalating interest rates and hyperinflation, coupled with
astronomical debt, both public and private, business bankruptcies,
spiraling unemployment and a markedly decreased standard of
living of the people;
3) A major military/ political defeat, following a long-
drawn-out conflict, with no apparent benefits accruing either to the
military or to the populace at large, but rather leaving both
segments with a loss of integrity and sense of personal worth.
4) Political and socio-economic power increasingly
centralized, characterized by a plethora of statutes and regulations,
a bloated bureaucracy, confiscatory taxes and the building up of a
national secret police force.
Perhaps the greatest danger as regards the possibility of a
coup is the utter humiliation in defeat suffered by the military
leaders. We see this most starkly in Russia.
This was the intriguing title of an op-ed by Neil H. G. Glick
(Washington Times, 21 Sep 1998). He was formerly program
director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia from
Glick considers that the Russian people are at the end of
their rope. “The people are angry, and there is fear of a new
revolution,” Glick wrote. “The Russian people long for a strong,
unifying leader to pull them out of this economic and social
turmoil.… A future leader could be found in the Russian military
– a historically respected part of society,” Glick said, pointing out
that the government was taking the threat of a military strongman
seriously. “All major military figures of the past five years were
pushed out of the Kremlin. One example is Gen. Alexander Lebed

who was thrown out of his government position a few weeks after
he effectively negotiated an end to the Russian war in Chechnya –
a war extremely unpopular with the people, yet strongly supported
by the government.”1
Glick outlined a scenario for another Russian revolution:
• Small protests spread to national level;
• Discontented masses hit the streets of Moscow and St. Petersburg;
• A new leader would emerge, who could blame “minorities and the
West.” He would showcase how the once- powerful military has lost
its glory. By simple promises, a leader could have support of the
military, which creates a short path to the Kremlin.2
Glick stated that the scenario of an “unknown force taking
power is frighteningly close to what happened to Russia in 1917,
ushering in Lenin and the Communist Party.”
In his final analysis, Glick stressed that we should push
President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Primakov to make the major
reforms that had never occurred, "otherwise a people’s revolution
and a frightening New Russian Order would emerge.”3
Those four conditions making a country ripe for a coup are
also present in the United States to a greater degree than they have
been in the past 50 years. The Korean police action of the 1950s,
followed by the protracted Vietnamese fiasco of the 1960-70s,
created a long-festering wound in the military body – a stab in the
back, if you will – as well as a suppurating sore in the body politic.
Neither was assuaged by the massive effort on the part of
the Bush administration in 1991 to defeat a contrived enemy in
what we call Desert Storm. Many of the leaders who took part in
that engagement feel no sense of pride and accomplishment in the
results. “It was a bloody massacre,” one general grimly recounted,
“and we handed out like crackerjack prizes over 40,000 medals for

We were close to a coup in the early 1970s as President

Nixon was dragged through the contrived Watergate affair, and
again when President Ford was shot at twice in 1975. Later, in
1981, following the shooting of President Reagan, the situation
was ripe for a possible coup, but the four elements listed were not
present in sufficient detail. The same can be said for the
assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963. Remember
too that in each of these instances, elements of the federal
government were directly involved… complicit would perhaps be a
better word. Several high-level military officers believed that the
killing of JFK was in fact a coup d’état carried out by elements of
the CIA working with the Israeli Mossad. Kennedy was attempting
to halt the development of nuclear weapons by the Israelis, while
simultaneously planning to disband the CIA and disengage our
military troops from the Indo-China area. (Read Final Judgment
by Michael Collins Piper for more details.)5
Consider that since the end of WW II, there have been 140
coup attempts about the world and that over 100 of them were
successful. Bear in mind that we are only addressing coups and
disregarding other types of conflicts, such as revolts, guerrilla wars,
insurrections, civil wars, border conflicts, limited war, or covert
There is a pattern in coups, in that the successful ones
involved elements of at least two of the traditional three military
services; where one faction attempted to go it alone, or when a
political faction attempted a coup, it generally failed. Syria is
perhaps the only exception. Since 1949, army factions have staged
12 successful coups and failed but twice.6
Before we look more closely at the distinct possibility of a
coup in one of the developed countries, let’s look briefly at the
likelihood of a more bloody revolution. In fact, the coterie of
Marxists-Leninists, modern-day Socialists, and their fellow
travelers have been cunningly manipulating various factions and

events, not only in the European countries, but throughout the

Americas, hoping – and perhaps praying – for a “proletarian”
revolution. Their strategy is the age-old divide et impera. We saw
it in spades during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles and
witnessed it ad nauseam in the never-ending OJ Simpson murder
trial. Had Ron Goldman been a gentile, O. J. would have been
back in the good graces of Hollywood instead of a pariah. Who
was really in charge? Take a look back at the entourage of pricey
defense lawyers, cunningly working the system to strip their client
of all of his assets and then get him acquitted. His guilt or
innocence was not even secondary; of exclusive import is the
matter of race, which could be the trigger for our own bloody
revolt of the masses.
Wilmot Robertson stressed the factor of race in his
international best seller The Dispossessed Majority (1981). He
states that if a revolution ever breaks out in the United States, it
will not be because of the hardening of class divisions or capitalist
exploitation, but because of the heterogeneity of the American
population, the racial dynamism of minority elements within this
population, and the deracination (uprooting) of the American
The order of battle is already drawn up. On the revolutionary
side of the barricades will be the fire-breathing militants of the
unassimilable minorities… and the more desperate and more
compromised Majority liberals. On the counterrevolutionary side will be
the Majority core and the assimilated members of the Assimilable
Minorities. As in all revolutions most of the population will assume, or
try to assume, a very low and very neutral profile.7
A so-called proletarian revolution would obviously put the
finishing touches on the dispossession of the Majority. Robertson
warns that to speed the day, the inflammatory rhetoric, the urban
insurrections, and the guerrilla war which the media still prefer to
call a crime wave are putting so many Americans in such a
revolutionary mood that a further escalation of violence will hardly
be necessary. He further states:

A few more decades of this softening up, this preparation for the
kill, could be as damaging to the Majority as an all-out Marxist putsch.8
Herewith, a timely word of warning as regards the
possibility of a coup in the United States. Most of us will probably
agree with Gen Barney Rutkowski’s statement in Seven Days in
May: “People always say it couldn’t happen here, and I am one of
those people… but.…”9
The federal administration, ostensibly run by the President,
but actually under the total control of his handlers (made up of
unassimilable minorities and liberal intelligentia), could
accomplish a de facto coup by declaring a national emergency,
suspending the Constitution, and turning the nation over to its
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We can look
back to that time in the 1930s, prior to World War II, when we
were in fact living under a national emergency enforced by a
virtual dictator – FDR – and his alien handlers. We can look
forward to more of the same.
On 21 January 1999, Bill Clinton announced that he is
thinking about setting up a “Domestic Terrorism Team headed by a
military “commander in chief” with a $2.8 billion budget to
combat alleged terrorism on US soil. (New York Times, 22 Jan
1999). But the danger from terrorism on US soil was the direct
result of President Bush and Clinton’s reckless bombing of six
countries: Yugoslavia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Albania, and
Iraq. That’s what motivated the world’s number one terrorist
Osama bin Laden, to state that all Americans, including “those who
pay taxes,” are now his targets.
Using terrorism as an excuse, the Clinton Administration
made extraordinary plans to use military force against American
Secretary of Defense WIlliam Cohen said in an Army Times
interview that “Americans soon may have to choose between civil
liberties and more intrusive means of protection.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre has been floating

the idea of designating some US troops as a “Homelands Defense
Command” to impose military rule within the United States.
The Army War College journal Parameters (Autumn 1997)
predicted that “terrorism” will “almost inevitably trigger an
intervention by the military” and “legal niceties…will be a minor
Clinton’s Executive Order 12919, entitled National Defense
Industrial Resources Preparedness, gives FEMA dictatorial
authority over communications, energy, food, transportation,
health, housing, and other resources. The president can invoke
“emergency” powers to deal with a perceived emergency.
There are two elements within our current structure which
give them pause: one is the fact that the hard core units of our
military force structure are still under the direct command of
Majority officers and noncoms; the second is that we have within
the heartland a heavily-armed and patriotic citizenry, many of them
now formed into what can best be called an unorganized militia.
These two can be broken in two ways. Recognizing the
psychological import of the territorial imperative – men and
women fighting to the death for their piece of real estate – the
Federal juggernaut has the power and coercive force to disarm the
citizens completely by the use of mercenary UN forces already
located about the US, and then destroy their economic base by a
calculated financial collapse. It just might take such an awakening
call to cause a normally docile and peace-loving citizenry to rise up
in righteous wrath and slay the Midianites, delivering the heads of
their “princes” and other assorted “royalty” to our own Gideon.
Does anybody out there hear the sound of the trumpet?
We are now at the stage where there seems to be a general
breakdown in the dialogue between the citizenry and their duly
constituted government in Washington DC.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the best seller The

Secret Life of Bill Clinton written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
(1997). He was Washington correspondent for the London Daily
Telegraph for four years, prior to his sudden recall to London by
the paper in late 1997. Because of the nature of his subject – the
wrongdoings of a sitting president of the United States – and his
impeccable and thorough research, we should consider his
statements in the same light as we look upon the revelations of
Alexis de Tocqueville about the US, which he made during a visit
to this country in 1831. Usually the most accurate portrayal of a
country comes from the pens of foreign historians, rather than a
native of the country.
Evans-Pritchard reveals key features of what he sees as the
disintegration of a once-great nation, the United States of America,
in his parting shot at the Clinton administration. Carried as an
editorial under the banner “Good-bye, good riddance” and featured
in the Daily Telegraph in 1997, it included inter alia:
The Clintons wasted little time taking charge of the US Justice
Department. All US attorneys were asked to turn in their resignations
(1993). It was a move of breath-taking audacity, one that gave the
Clintons control over the prosecutorial machinery of the federal
government in every judicial district in the country.
They then set about eliminating the Director of the FBI, William
Sessions, who was known for his refusal to countenance White House
interference in the affairs of the Bureau. The post of FBI director is
supposed to be a 10-year appointment that puts it above politics…
Sessions was toppled in a Washington putsch… and replaced by the
hapless errand boy Louis Freeh.10
Upon the firing of Sessions by his boss, Janet Reno, he
emerged from her offices visibly shaken; so much so that, while
stepping off the curb to enter his car, he tripped, fell, and broke his
arm. We will shortly discover that this was not the first time a
director of the FBI was removed. First, let’s look more closely at
Evans-Pritchard’s revelations:
When you are living through events day by day, it is hard to
know whether you are witnessing a historic turning point, or just

mistaking the usual noise of politics for something meaningful.… There is

no doubt that strange things have been going on in America.
The Clinton era has spawned an armed militia movement
involving tens of thousand of people. The last time anything like this
occurred was in the 1850s with the emergence of the southern gun clubs.
It is easy to dismiss the militia as ‘right-wing nuts’; it is much harder to
read the complex sociology of civic revolt. At the very least the militias
reveal the hatred building up against the irksome yuppies who run the
country.… It is under the president that domestic terrorism has become a
feature of life in America, culminating in the destruction of the Oklahoma
federal building on April 19, 1995. What set the deadly spiral in motion
was the Waco assault two years before, and the cover-up that followed.
No official has ever lost a day’s pay for precipitating the
incineration of 80 people, most of them women and children, in the worst
abuse of power since Wounded Knee a century ago. Instead of shame and
accountability, the Clinton administration accused the victims of setting
fire to themselves and their children, a posthumous smear that does not
bear serious scrutiny. It then compounded the injustice by pushing for a
malicious prosecution of the survivors.
Nothing does more to sap the life of a democracy than the abuse
of power. Public trust is dangerously low. According to polls, barely a
quarter of the American people now feel that they can count on the federal
government to do the right things.
A majority refuses to accept that Vincent Foster committed
suicide, and they have good reason for their doubts. The paramedics and
crime scene witnesses in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, tell a story
that flatly contradicts the official findings. A police Polaroid shows a .22
caliber bullet wound in Foster’s neck that the autopsy somehow failed to
show. Are Americans to believe that Hillary Clinton’s closest friend shot
himself twice, with two different guns?
The worst thing Clinton has done to America was to make the
FBI the mutated clone of the Arkansas State Police resulting in their
becoming a mere rubber stamp for whatever the Clinton administration
declares as truth.… Whether it is the persecution of dissident
investigators in the air disasters of Pan Am 103 and TWA 800, or
allowing the White House to peruse the secret files of political opponents,
or the alleged intimidation of key witnesses in the Foster case, the FBI is
starting to look like the enforcement arm of a police state.…
The FBI has now been politicized to the point where it cannot be

Let’s consider two alphabet-soup organizations we know
best by initials: the CFR which we discussed earlier; and the FBI
which has had from its date of inception the mission of protecting
the country from subversion and espionage. During the 1930s and
through the war years of the 1940s, the FBI was especially active in
the area of monitoring organizations with possible links to both
Communism and National Socialism.
The actual FBI investigation of the CFR began about the
time of the outbreak of war in Europe and continued throughout
the US involvement in that war. The FBI, under the able
leadership of J. Edgar Hoover, continued to monitor the CFR
through the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
An examination of their cabinets and close advisers will reveal that
the vast majority were CFR members.
In 1972 J. Edgar Hoover launched a major investigation of
the CFR. A few weeks later, he was discovered dead at his home.
L. Patrick Gray III, a retired Navy captain, was appointed as
director; however, in less than a year, following an exchange of
data stamped SECRET between Gray and his top agent in charge
of the Oklahoma City office concerning Gary Allen’s book, None
Dare Call It Conspiracy, Gray was fired by President Nixon and
replaced by Clarence Kelley. He scrubbed the ongoing
investigation of the CFR and lasted as head of the FBI for five
The thrust of the book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, is
that the CFR holds absolute sway over the United States
Government, with the objective of destroying the Constitution and
forming a socialistic one-world government under the United
To refresh your memory on just what the CFR does, we can
look to a book by Senator Barry M Goldwater, With No Apologies,
in which he defined the CFR members as being “the most elite

names in the world of government, labor, finance, business,

communications, the foundations and the academies.”13
While, according to Goldwater, many of the CFR policies
were damaging to the cause of freedom and particularly to the
United States, this is not because the members are Communists or
Communist sympathizers. He further stated:
I believe the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist
groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors.
In their pursuit of a new world order they are prepared to deal without
prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state,
monarchy, oligarchy… it’s all the same to them.…14
One CFR member (for 16 years), Admiral Chester Ward,
authored a book with Phyllis Schlafly, Kissinger on a Couch, after
he broke away from the organization. The Admiral warned:
The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one
objective in mind… they want to bring about the surrender of the
sovereignty and the national independence of the United States.15
Since William Webster, an active member of the CFR, took
over the FBI in 1978, that organization has provided the heads of
all the major intelligence and security agencies – not only the FBI,
but the CIA and the NSA. It has also made deep penetrations into
the higher echelons of the military.
This would seem to indicate little chance of a coup d’état
taking place in the United States… unless one is deliberately
staged, as was the case in the Soviet Union in 1991.
Let’s look at further aspects of the typical coup d’état in
order to determine whether here in the United States, or in other
advanced nations, such a usurpation of the existing government is
possible or even feasible.
When we examine the situations existing in other countries
prior to a coup being attempted, we will see that there is generally
a breakdown in communication between the government and the
governed. The dialogue is either nil or meaningless.

Let’s look briefly at what happened to Chile in the 1970s.

William Norman Grigg, senior editor with the New American
magazine, wrote an outstanding piece, “Justice” for Pinochet, in
the 23 Nov 1998 issue. The thrust of this fine article was that
Augusto Pinochet, former Chilean leader, was “arrested” in
London (16 Oct 1998) while seeking treatment for a heart problem
and diabetes. Pinochet was 82 at the time.
Salvador Allende, who was elected president in 1970 with a 37
percent plurality, was an unabashed Marxist who was eagerly imposing
Cuban-style socialism on what had been a prosperous and stable
By 1972, former President Eduardo Frei said:
Chile is in the throes of an economic disaster. Not a crisis, but a
veritable catastrophe no one could foresee would happen so swiftly nor so
totally.… The hatred is worse than the inflation, the shortages, the
economic disaster.17
Grigg writes:
Less than a month before the coup, Allende told his cabinet that
‘the armed forces and the popular parties (that is, the various Communist-
controlled groups) would move against those representing the ‘fascist
sectors’ in Chile – which included anyone who opposed the conversion of
the country into a Marxist ‘utopia’.18
Allende created a praetorian guard and drew up lists of
enemies to be purged or liquidated, including the top military
leadership. Pinochet’s lightning coup of 11 Sep 1973 resulted in
the death of Allende and the removal of his Communist co-
Frei declared after the coup, “The military has saved Chile
and all of us. A civil war was being well-prepared by the
Grigg reports that in the preemptive action undertaken by
the military junta, about 600 Communists either died or
disappeared, and another 4,800 were either imprisoned or exiled
(most of those incarcerated were released within five years).
Pinochet was indeed a dictator, but in the old Roman sense of the
expression: he took power in a moment of crisis, restored lawful order,

renounced his extraordinary powers and relaxed temporary restrictions as

soon as events permitted, and surrendered power altogether once he was
no longer needed.
Under Pinochet’s stewardship, state-run businesses were
privatized, interventionist measures were abolished, the standard of living
for all Chileans – including the poor – improved dramatically, a private
system of retirement insurance was created, and the Chilean economy
enjoyed unprecedented growth.
As Grigg states:
Under Pinochet, Chile enjoyed the prosperity and ordered
liberty which was anathema to Allende’s Marxist regime. Predictably
enough, Pinochet became the international focus of Communist-inspired
enmity. The Marxist Left never forgets and cannot forgive, and with the
aging Pinochet – who suffered from a heart condition, a urinary tract
infection, and diabetes – recuperating from surgery, the opportunity for
revenge presented itself.19


When we look at the situation in our own country, we see a
pattern, ever-intensifying since 1964, where the three branches of
government not only neglect but deliberately alienate the majority.
Using the psychological tactic of divide et impera, successive
governments, whether under a Democratic or Republican
president, have showered blessings on the “minorities,” to the
financial, social and ethnic degradation of the majority.
Governmental edicts, coupled to a controlled and complicit
media deliberately divorced from the majority, are designed
specifically to create further divisiveness between various groups,
such as black against white, Christian against Muslim, child
against parent, man against woman, and especially homosexual
against heterosexual.
We witnessed this in spades in the 1990s where, in the
interest of diversity, Clinton chose what he (and Hillary)
considered to be equal representation of society in general in his
cabinet and other appointments. Far from being representative, we
saw a heavy concentration of minorities such as militant women
and homosexuals. In fact, in the cabinet, in the Supreme Court

selections, in Justice, in the FBI and CIA and in key advisory

positions, Jews predominate.
This, of course, is not a new revelation. The majority of
Woodrow Wilson’s key advisors were also Jewish, as were those
of FDR during his 12-year reign. (52 of his top cabinet officers
and close advisors, out of a total of 75, were Jewish.)
Throughout the Clinton administration, Jews occupy at
least 65% of the key slots of federal government. Many of them
were selected from the CFR, whose total membership of over
3,100 is roughly 50% Jewish.
This is a fact and must be considered. The trigger to past
coups and other forms of conflict has often been ethnic, moral,
cultural, or religious difference, where one group strives to
dominate another within a nation. Rather than coups, they develop
into what we call indigenous upsurges, similar to what is
happening today in the former USSR and Yugoslavia. The result is
gross instability.
Such British “royalty” as Lord Rees-Mogg, Peter
Carrington and Lord Owen, coupled with members of our own
“royalty” here in the US, e.g., Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft
and Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger, operating under the banner of
Kissinger Associates, have created these upsurges, using the
manipulative techniques developed by the London Tavistock
Institute and practiced as well by such anti-nativist organizations as
the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), the Hudson Institute and the
Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
Most ruling cliques hope for stability; however, faced with
a threat to their power base, they can generally create instability at
will, usually to the detriment of the ruled. Any government,
whether of a developed or developing nation, makes use of certain
tried and true techniques of physical and psychological control and
coercion of its populace, among them mass manipulation.

Mass manipulation by government is accomplished by

controlling – either directly or indirectly – the ‘7 Ms’: Money,
Media, Markets, Medical, Mind, Morals, and Muscle, the last of which
is embodied in the Military. The primary function of our armed
forces is to defend the Constitution of the United States of
America. That primary function, however, has slowly been
subverted by an enemy within.
The Muscle has been slowly and systematically exhausted
by thrusting that military into wars of attrition – no-win wars of
both psychological and physical defeat, as planned by that
amorphous group of self-aggrandizing and self-promoting one-
worlders who are slowly, slowly strangling us and our freedom
with the binding chains of despotic World Government.
That same group has now created a Monopoly over five of
the seven Ms and is currently engaged in a two-fold task to subvert
the military’s role of defending the Constitution from all enemies,
both foreign and domestic, by such missions as peacekeeping,
humanitarianism, nationbuilding. At the same time, this
amorphous group seeks to forge elements of our military –
including National Guard units – into a global military force under
the United Nations and/or NATO, which is nothing but a subgroup
of the UN.
Coupled with suborning the roles and missions of the
military is the progressive and systematic weakening of that force
by a process of downsizing, feminizing and sodomizing. Such
menacing malevolence was hatched in various Talmudic think
tanks, e.g., the Institute for Policy Studies, the Hudson Institute, the
Tavistock Institute for Political/Psychological Warfare, and an
offshoot of the Frankfurt School, the Institute for Social Research.